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

IBM MQ vs Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM MQ
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
162
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (1st), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (1st)
Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
13th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of IBM MQ is 29.2%, up from 26.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

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.
AR
It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia
We have an application-presentation layer, and we use JBoss to communicate with the application layer. The interceptors use Active MQ.  JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support.  JBoss could add more automation. We have been using JBoss for five…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution can scale well."
"The product's initial setup phase is very easy."
"Reliable messaging and throughput are the most valuable."
"Reliability is the most valuable feature. MQ is used to support critical business applications."
"It improves reliability and guarantees that messages are not lost."
"It is very robust and very scalable."
"There is no dependency on the end party service's run status."
"Clustering is one of its most valuable features."
"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."
 

Cons

"It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions."
"Should have more integration in the monitoring tools."
"They probably need to virtualize the MQ flow and allow us to design the MQ flow using the UI. It would also help to migrate to the cloud easily and implement AWS Lambda functions with minimum coding. If you have to code, then just with NodeJS or Java."
"There are no improvements needed at this time."
"It's not always easy for applications to connect to IBM MQ, but I think it's fine in general."
"The GUI part could be better."
"If they could have some front-end monitoring tool that could be easily available for the team to use, that could be great."
"With IBM products, there's less marketing. If they do more demos and more seminars on their products, it will be very useful. On a given day. I get seminar invites for many vendors and products, but for IBM, I may get an invite once or twice a year."
"JBoss could add more automation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"To implement such an IBM solution, a company has to pay a lot in term of licensing and consultancy. A pricing model might be a better option."
"The price of the solution could be reduced, and we are on an annual subscription."
"There is real money involved here. As compared to RabbitMQ, IBM MQ is on the higher side in terms of cost."
"In terms of cost, IBM MQ is slightly on the higher side."
"It's a very expensive product."
"99.999 percent availability for less than a penny per message over the past 25 years. IBM MQ is the cheapest software in the IBM software portfolio, and it is one of the best."
"It is a very expensive product compared to the open source products in the market."
"The price of IBM MQ could improve by being less expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
4%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

WebSphere MQ
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
E*TRADE, CERN, CenturyLink, AECOM, Sabre Holdings
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Apache, Salesforce and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.