IBM Integration Bus Reviews

I worked with Integration Bus for a UK-based insurance client and banking domain client. Our main use cases are for integrating different systems. We were involved in integrating their master data management domain.

The message queue connectors are the most valuable feature. They have built-in connectors for most of the systems, like SAP and Oracle Database.

The password settings need improvement. 

I have been using Integration Bus for five years. 

The solution is highly stable. 

The scalability is very high. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The pricing of the solution is high. 

Overall, I would rate the product a ten out of ten.

We used the solution for opening new accounts for a banking system. Our client used some old techniques and didn’t have an integration layer. I created an account opening application for our client.

IBM Integration Bus is a very strong tool. It helps in integrating the front-end and back-end systems.

We have to stop the integration server to start the debugging process. The debugging mechanism of other products is better than that of IBM.

I have been using the solution for six months.

I did not face any issues with the solution’s stability.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is easy, but the database is quite heavy for the local DC. It was also a little bit complex to connect to some databases.

The deployment of the solution is very easy. We just add the integration server and drag and drop the services to the integration server. We deployed the solution in-house. We do not face any trouble in the maintenance of the product.

I am a system integrator. In Software AG, debugging does not intervene with any other process. I also use Software AG webMethods and TIBCO. Software AG webMethods is the best product because it is very easy to develop and flexible. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product helps us develop integration applications. It also enables communication between applications from different environments.

The features I have found most valuable in this solution are transformation and routing.

IBM Integration Bus doesn’t provide some features that MuleSoft provides. These features should be added to the solution.

The product does not provide API management. We have to use a separate tool called API Connect for our needs. It would be good if IBM could combine these tools.

I have been using the solution for the past nine years.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The people in our organization who faced scalability issues deployed the product on the cloud, where they could make it scalable. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

I have spoken with the support team about a couple of issues. They were really helpful, and the response was very fast.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. We did not face any challenges.

It took us a couple of minutes to deploy the product. We deployed the solution with our in-house team. A team of two to three administrators usually monitors the product in the production environment.

I am using the latest version of the solution. We use Jenkins to deploy the applications we build on IBM Integration Bus. My organization is one of the largest IT service providers, with hundreds of customers across the globe.

We depend on IBM for patches when there are some issues in the production environment. I am a developer, and I work in solution development. I have worked with multiple organizations for multiple accounts. I would recommend the solution to others. IBM Integration Bus is a leading product.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. Usually, they want to use this for consolidating the services. It is used to integrate their core insurance systems with the rest of the environment.

We try to enable this kind of service-oriented architecture (SOA) to assist our clients with consolidating all of their services.

The most valuable feature is the API integration.

The integration is difficult to manage.

Migrating to this solution is complex and it would be helpful if they had a way to convert existing integrations.

We have been using IBM Integration Bus for more than three years.

From a scalability point of view, I think that this product is good.

I would say that it is good for an enterprise-level customer.

We receive our technical support through an IBM partner in Taiwan. However, developing this kind of project required asking for assistance from the IBM Lab Services. Without Lab Services, our support would not have been as strong.

Migrating to this solution is complicated and not simple to do if they already have API integration between systems.

We also work with TIBCO and Oracle ESB solutions. We find that our customers have had a good experience with them and there is always a lot of interest in these two products.

IBM Integration Bus is a good product and I would recommend it for enterprise customers.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

It is used for the banking domain and telco. We use it for integration between vendors from core banking and the other channels, for example, buyers, CRM and codes.

The most valuable thing is the loose coupling and making the change in only one stack of the ESB layer or the middleware layer. This helps in big projects and when we have multiple channels calling back at the same time.

The Toolkit itself is based on Eclipse and Java, and it does not respond sometimes. When we are working on the Toolkit using or working on our PCs or remote desktop the program has issues with performance. The performance needs to be enhanced. More labs for developers who want to learn about this technology for trial. They may provide a trial version of App Connect or Toolkit to try it for themselves.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for the past five years.

It is very stable and used by very large companies and banking in EMEA, or in Egypt and the Middle East. It is used in very stable projects and critical ones that have payment transactions, like wallets or through transactions, and internet banking.

It is very scalable.  We have twenty different developer and administrator teams working with it.

If we have to fix an installation or other support needed, an administrator opens a ticket with IBM and they support it, especially if it is in the license agreement with them. But, I am a developer, not related to technical support. From the community side, I would rate technical support a seven out of ten because IBM documentation is available over the internet and on other websites.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and takes about one minute to deploy

We have the enterprise edition, and it is licensed yearly. I do not know what the cost is.

They can converge other products, ESB, or SOAR architecture. I may recommend IBM as a solution tool for a business if they are looking for a stable environment. They will find support on the community forum. I would rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

IBM Integration Bus can be deployed in many ways, such as on-premise, cloud, and hybrid. 

The current customer that we have wants to have a hybrid deployment. We're investigating how they can manage to do it. For the hybrid deployment, they will have an instance running in a docker image, or in an Amazon AWS. The heavy operations will be done by the on-premise version. Which is what we currently have.

The most valuable features of the IBM Integration Bus are flexibility. It's also an alternative for integrating it with other projects, which we are not ready at this time to do, such as switching to tunnels. The tunnels would be used with other partners to make sure everything is secured.

IBM Integration Bus could improve by having a more lightweight installation. Additionally, automation could improve.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for approximately 13 years.

IBM Integration Bus is highly stable.

We have approximately four clients using this solution.

The technical support is very good, they have a fast response.

The installation of the IBM Integration Bus was straightforward. The time frame that it takes for the deployment depends on the environment the customer has. 

The licensing model of IBM Integration Bus is good. It's a yearly subscription. However, the price is depending on the model that you choose. If it's a Cloud version, then you can pay per month or you can pay it annually upfront. There are three-year options available, but it depends on what deployment you have.

As more people are moving operations toward the Cloud. The Clouds are offering subscriptions. They will charge you based on what they're processing. Whereas the on-premise version, the vendors offer a perpetual license. It doesn't have those limitations that the subscriptions models have for the number of transactions. What most of the vendors are doing is they will more or less charge you for a small, medium, or large package based on the number of transactions and they will bill your account.

IBM Integration Bus is a very good solution and they have come a long way with improvements over the years.

I rate IBM Integration Bus a nine out of ten.

We have used IIB as a complete ESB solution with IBM MQ for various financial institutions. IIB supports various connectors, message formats, and transport protocols.

Its transformation language, ESQL, is easy to learn and use. Rich support of the mapping node (GUI mapping), JavaCompute Node, XSL, etc. make it useful and developer friendly.

IIB 10's primary features:

1. REST API design and development support out-of-the-box. OpenAPI compliant.
2. Lightweight run time, hence it is ideal for Docker/microservices implementation.
3. Several ways to admin using web interface, REST API admin capabilities, and console administration.
4. Long list of already built-in connectors for legacy systems (CICS, MQ, etc) and modern system connectors (Salesforce, LoopBack, etc.).
5. Long list of parsers (XMLNSC, DFDL, JSON, etc.).
6. Easy to understand documentation with a huge list of examples and tutorials.

• We were able to implement REST APIs quickly by using out-of-the-box support for design and implementation.
• IBM support is exceptionally competent and quick.
• It has been on the market for a long time, so getting skilled resources is convenient. Therefore, you will see your team growing and learning it quickly.
  

1. REST API design and development support are useful. Building and exposing APIs using GUI API designer with editor makes implementation a breeze.
   
2. Pub/Sub support (using IBM MQ) and MQTT broker support bring complex patterns (CQRS, etc) and services to life real quickly.
3. Web interface, REST API for viewing services, admin, stats, and deployment are premium features, which makes IIB stand among its competition.
4. Several connectors for various different protocols.

1. My biggest concern is its MQ dependency, which are still not 100% independent. E.g., in the case of aggregation flows, IIB needs a complete overhaul for aggregation implementation to achieve orchestration implementation.
2. Development toolkit (based on Eclipse) should be improved in terms of responsiveness.
3. It lacks unit testing framework similar to JUnit for Java or MUnit for Mule ESB.
4. IIB run time and installation still need to shed more weight and become lightweight for to become full Docker applications.

No issues. It is stable enough.

No scalability issues.

IBM support is fantastic and quick.

We did not switch. Wherever I have implemented it, it was either:

1. IIB/WMB was already there.
2. It was the preferred choice.

I would rate the initial setup (with MQ) on AIX and Linux as a six out of 10, as it needs expertise.

We implemented it in-house.

We are going through digital transformation journey. For now, the solution is helping us.

1. The IIB setup is still very command-based. The implementation is not so easy.
2. It still needs a lot of environment and OS-related tweaking.
3. Pricing is on par with its competition.

We evaluated Mule ESB. We didn't consider because:

1. Mulesoft was relatively new. Hence, it lacked skilled resources.
2. The cost was high compared to IIB.
3. The client had a good relationship with IBM. 

IIB is a great product. It could use some minor improvements, such as: 

1. IIB toolkit needs design overhaul; maybe some themes.
2. Current aggregation implementation should be deprecated. MQ independent, as well as an intuitive solution, should be proposed.
3. App Connect Enterprise (IIB's newer version) might solve the above issue.

Our primary use case for IBM Integration Bus is that it is rigid, scalable, and offers high availability with minimal to no data loss. We have developed services that utilize IBM MQ to transfer data. Our service is running every day at the airport.

The error handling and monitoring functionalities of IBM Integration Bus are very good. However, Red Hat offers better monitoring tools.

IBM Integration Bus can improve by implementing no-code or drag-and-drop adapters development, similar to what is available in Red Hat. Additionally, the monitoring features could be improved.

I have experience working with IBM ESB for almost ten years.

I would rate the solution's stability at nine out of ten.

I would rate the solution's scalability at eight out of ten.

The customer service and support can be rated as eight out of ten, and I find them to be good.

Positive

Before using IBM Integration Bus, we used various other solutions, including TIPCO. I don't remember all of them now.

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus was very difficult, especially during development. It was challenging to configure and install the solution on personal laptops or PCs when trying to download the free version for testing.

We used a third party for the deployment. We used to develop on top of an Integration Bus, however, we did not do the startup installation or installation field ourselves.

The pricing of IBM Integration Bus is very high, which is the biggest negative for us. It is one of the reasons why we opted for a different solution now.

I would recommend IBM Integration Bus because of its scalability and high stability.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.