IBM Integration Bus Reviews

We use it for migration.

The most valuable feature is that it's robust and its time to market is very short.

In terms of improvement, the UI should be more user-friendly.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for five years. 

It's very stable and very easy to scale. 

We have the VR application version of our support now but they have been very supportive. 

The deployment takes about a week or so, it's lengthy.

We're satisfied with the price, it's okay. The terms and everything are decided by the company. It's not a big deal for us.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

I would recommend it.

We primarily use the solution as a basic integration platform for all the complicated technology solutions we have.

The solution's features are all quite useful. We use all of them.

Currently, we have some custom solutions for logs; it would be nice if these solutions could be provided out of the box.

The solution doesn't have a standard testing framework that can be used for integration performance and other tests. 

The user interface could be improved in a future release.

The solution is stable.

The response from technical support is typically quick. However, sometimes when we ask IBM to fix coding, that can take several months. I understand this is because the product is quite sizable.  They can often answer our questions without having to fix the entire product itself and they give a quick and detailed response. 

We previously used other solutions, including Oracle, specifically Oracle Fusion Middleware. IBM is much better. It has many more options and offers more functionality. IBM offers better customization, configuration, and options in general.

The initial setup is reasonable. However, the product requires administrators and developers to spend some time studying or to have previous experience.  Deployment is very fast. 

The first time we purchased the tool, we worked with a consulting company that assisted in the implementation. Now that we have experience, we handle it ourselves.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I found all features valuable. There are a lot of connectors. 

Its documentation is currently lacking. We have different environments where we use our configuration services, but we are not able to find documentation about how to deploy the local code to the server and how to set it up on a server level. I would like more documents from IBM that explain which variables should be in your machine while building a project, and when you deploy the code into the server, what should be their values. There are some variable values. I could not find such documentation. While working on a project, I developed the code on a local machine, and while deploying the code to our test environment, I made a couple of mistakes. We had to change some values at the server level, but we couldn't find any documentation regarding this, which made the task difficult.

Everyone is moving to the cloud. There is Bluemix from IBM. There should be more connectors that can connect with cloud systems.

I have been working with this solution for seven years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. Our customers are in the medium range.

I never interacted with IBM's technical support for IIB. I haven't raised any tickets so far.

I also work with MuleSoft. Comparing IIB to MuleSoft, IIB is always used by big companies because it is a licensed solution, whereas MuleSoft is open source. So, small organizations use MuleSoft. Our clients in the USA, Canada, and Dubai preferred IIB over MuleSoft because they have more belief in IBM products, and they feel more secure and safe while using it.

Its installation is easy.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. It is a good product. A lot of new products have come into the market, such as Tibco, MuleSoft, but this product still exists, and clients do believe in this product.

It is used to enable communication between applications. For example, when application A needs to interact with application B, IBM Integration Bus provides a kind of bridge that helps application A to communicate with application B in terms of messaging. Application A might be using a specific format, such as XML, which needs to be converted into the format understood by application B. IBM Integration Bus takes care of this transformation and routing of messages from application A to application B. I have seen IIB been used in the banking, payments, and finance domains.

It makes the communication between multiple and heterogeneous applications so easy. We can bring together different messages and applications from different platforms and connect them through IBM Integration Bus.

They need to come up with Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). It should also have a feature for integrating with those applications that are on the cloud.

I have been using this solution for the past four years.

It is stable. There are plenty of projects that have been using this tool. My friends or my ex-colleagues who have moved to other organizations also find it good.

I don't have an insight into the scalability as such, but based on the meetings related to the maintenance of the application, I did not come across any scalability-related issues.

There were a couple of instances when my team approached them, and there was a good response from the IBM team. There were some delays, but that happened almost three to four years ago. Their support might have improved recently.

It is quite straightforward. For our project, we do have different needs. We build artifacts that are ready to be deployed. These artifacts need to be placed in a specific folder or directory. They are then picked up and deployed in the servers. It is quite automated these days.

Its deployment is quick. It is a matter of seconds.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate IBM Integration Bus an eight out of ten.

We use this product as an integration point between systems. We use it for logging and transformation of data between backend and frontend.

Our use case involves the communications industry.

The most valuable feature is that it is clear and easy to learn.

There is a community available where I can find a solution if I am facing a problem.

The interface could be more user-friendly.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for about one year.

IBM Integration Bus is stable, although it depends on the efficiency of our code, the network stability, and the infrastructure. It will be stable if all of the applications are running efficiently.

We have a support agreement that is included with our license and whenever we have a problem, we contact them. In my experience, they provide good support. They also provide good material and documents.

I have not used another similar solution by another vendor, although I have been part of projects where other systems had been implemented.

The initial setup is straightforward, especially with Java and EasyCODE.

We make use of tools like bash scripting when we deploy files. When we deploy a single file, it takes about five minutes.

In summary, I can recommend this product because it is easy and straightforward to learn and use. It is also stable and has a good market share. All of the features that I have needed already exist.

If a developer would like to shift and try becoming an integration developer, then this is a good product to work with.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use for this solution is to integrate different applications into the aviation area.

We have an on-premises deployment.

The whole of the radar data that we receive from the ARPA (Automatic Radar Plotting Aid) is transformed by the IBM Integration bus.

This product provides a relatively easy way to develop integration solutions.

This solution has very good, high-availability features.

From a performance point of view, it's very good and it doesn't need very much in terms of CPU resources.

This product uses the PVU (Processor Value Unit) license model from IBM, and it is something that should be improved. It requires you to install monitoring software that ensures you are only using the number of CPUs that you have paid for. This license monitoring tool is very complicated. 

This solution is very stable.

We use this solution on a daily basis, and it is very, very important to us.

This solution is very scalable because there are different possibilities available when it comes to scaling it up.

We have two people who do the operating, and there are three to four people who are responsible for the development of the integrations.

I think that the support from IBM is very good for this solution. Usually, they answer very fast.

When I started at the facility, they were using CORBA (Common Object Request Broker) for the integration. It was used very intensively, and the project to introduce this solution was the replacement.

We had a consulting team from IBM on-site to perform the implementation. For the first three years, we had IBM consultants with us to guide us in the development and also in the operating of the solution.

Our licensing is based on a five-year contract, and as far as I know, there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fee.

We evaluated several similar products including solutions from Oracle and Software AG, and we chose this solution not only because of its technical features but also because of the on-site support that IBM gave us.

My advice for anybody implementing this solution for the first time is to have people from IBM on-site to help you establish the operating procedures and the development procedures.

My understanding is that the new release will have a lot of new features, including support for Docker containers. At this point, I don't have any requirements for the new release. It has also been rebranded.

This is a good solution from a technical and operational point of view, but they should really remove this technically complicated license controlling. It is very complicated software that you have to install.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is a content-based tool for system messaging. IIB comes with IBM MQ as its messaging backbone. With respect to our requirements, IIB fits well, and it does its job.

It has improved our company a lot. We have added a lot of adapters. The microservice has provided an advantage for us, so we have a lot of adapters with REST Node.js, which have been added.

IBM used to provide multiple adapters. For example, we also have an adaptor for MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport). 

With respect to our enterprise and SOA compliance (this product fits within the SOA compliance category), we want to talk about microsolution architecture, as enterprises generally enable SOA first before going to microsolutions. It will have to have a long-term approach on the SOA category, as IIB fits with a lot of other IBM products, like the WSRR, IBM DataPower, and MQ. It has a lot of advantages when we are using it or enforcing SOA as an architecture for our enterprises.

IBM does not support orchestration, which is how they designed it, and other BPM tools in the market support orchestration. IIB wasn't designed for short and small transitions which are preferred to be stateless. If they merged the BPM capability into this product, then it would be a better solution.

It is one of the most stable products which I have seen in the market. 

It scalability is seamless. There should not be any issues as long as we integrate fully with our use cases and restrict scenarios that we have tested on different operating systems. We have tested for the high availability and OTS availability. It has worked well so far.

Under certain situations, when what we were expecting is not right, then we contact support, and technical support from IBM is really good. However, IBM support is mostly for the small time stuff, like product releases. In a few years, they will end up the support unless we pay them. The difference is in the cost. Support costs are high compared to their competition. Otherwise, the support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We also evaluated Oracle.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10, because of: 

1. The community. 
2. They provide freeware.
3. The support that IBM provides. 
4. It fits its purpose.
   

IIB is one of the top-rated solution in this category. If looking for a tool which is SOA compliance, you can blindly go for this particular tool. 

The most important criteria when selecting a vendor is support. We are looking for the 24/7 support in respect to that particular product. It should be compliant within our business requirements. Technology is evolving day-by-day and should have an additional features added-on as long as we are required to implement those features, e.g. product security. We are using different encrypted algorithms on encryption screens, and these functionalities are widely adopted by IBM.

IBM Integration Bus integrates various systems by receiving, transforming, and routing messages in different formats, such as XML or JSON. It supports integration between different applications and services within the organization, enabling effective communication.

The solution has enhanced data processing capabilities by allowing efficient data integration and transformation. It has improved operational efficiency by handling various protocols and integrating different services.

The most valuable features are its support for various protocols (like HTTP) and its integration capabilities, which facilitate communication between different systems and services within the organization.

They could integrate AI technologies with the product. Additionally, ongoing developments and enhancements in integration technologies could be beneficial.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for 11 years.

The product is stable. 

The solution is scalable with OpenShift, allowing adjustments based on customer requirements.

The initial setup was straightforward, taking approximately 15 to 30 minutes to complete.

Overall, I rate IBM Integration Bus an eight out of ten.