Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Aurea CX Messenger vs IBM MQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Aurea CX Messenger
Ranking in Business Activity Monitoring
3rd
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
9th
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
7th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (12th), SOA Governance (3rd)
IBM MQ
Ranking in Business Activity Monitoring
1st
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
1st
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
163
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM MQ is 23.6%, up from 20.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Lightweight and efficient solution
It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…
SelvaKumar4 - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method
We find it scalable for internal applications, but not so much for external integrations. It should support a wider range of protocols, not just a few specific ones. Many other products have broader protocol support, and IBM MQ is lagging in that area. IBM MQ needs to improve the UI for quicker logging. Users should also have a lot more control over logging, with a dashboard-like interface. That's something they should definitely work on.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"Clustering is one of its most valuable features."
"Offers good performance as well as scalability and stability."
"I have found that the solution scales well."
"I think the whole product is useful. Their database and all is very good, and the product is fine. The fact that it ensures message delivery is probably the most important thing. I also like that you're able to trace and track everything. If it doesn't arrive at the destination, it will go back to the queue, and no message will be lost."
"IBM MQ's flexibility has sped up our active communication."
"The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day."
"The message queue and the integration with any development platform/language, i.e., NET and Java, are the most valuable features."
"The solution is stable."
 

Cons

"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"It should support a wider range of protocols, not just a few specific ones. Many other products have broader protocol support, and IBM MQ is lagging in that area."
"There are no improvements needed at this time."
"I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka."
"The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM)."
"The monitoring could be improved. It's a pain to monitor the throughput through the MQ. The maximum throughput for a queue or single channel isn't clear. We could also use some professional services by IBM to assess and tune the performance."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"There are many complications with IBM MQ servers."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is not so high."
"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
"There is real money involved here. As compared to RabbitMQ, IBM MQ is on the higher side in terms of cost."
"The price of the solution could be reduced, and we are on an annual subscription."
"This solution requires a license and we have purchased an enterprise license."
"The pricing needs improvement."
"The solution costs are high, it is going to cost a fair bit for annual operating costs and support."
"IBM's licensing model seems more reasonable than some competitors. They charge based on usage, which is good."
"We have a special contract with IBM MQ that give us a certain price."
"You have to license per application installation and if you expand vertically or horizontally, you will be paying for more licenses. The licenses are approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a license, it can get expensive quite quickly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
838,640 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Insurance Company
7%
Media Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Aurea CX Messenger?
The Messenger Broker is a really good feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Aurea CX Messenger?
The pricing is not so high. I will rate it a seven out of ten, where one is the lowest and ten is the highest. There are no additional fees to the standard license.
What needs improvement with Aurea CX Messenger?
The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services because the earlier version is not using web service and cloud functionality. If Aurea could include these features in the fut...
What is MQ software?
Hi As someone with 45+ years of experience in the Transaction and Message Processing world, I have seen many "MQ" solutions that have come into the market place. From my perspective, while each pro...
What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
How does IBM MQ compare with VMware RabbitMQ?
IBM MQ has a great reputation behind it, and this solution is very robust with great stability. It is easy to use, simple to configure and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocol...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
WebSphere MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM MQ and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,640 professionals have used our research since 2012.