IBM Integration Bus Reviews

My primary use case of this solution is for establishing an enterprise service between the orchestrated transactions of two different channels. This is the main purpose of this product.

There is a concept behind the project of this technology, the ESP technology, it is just the layer because of the bus between front systems and back systems, So if I want to change anything in the back system, no need to change in the front system, only this layer. So what do is, we make the integration of the system much, much easier and faster. So there is only  one layer to control the integration of the communication.

The resources about IBM are hard to find, and it is not enough material. Finding people who know this product is problematic.

The product is very stable. 

The scalability actually depends upon the number of users, channels and transactions per second. Horizontal it is hard to add more, but vertical is very easy.

Tech support is very good, but it takes time to resolve any issue.

I have prior experience with Oracle. The work bus and the the word map is totally different from Oracle.  In Oracle you're doing the job management most of the time, in IBM product, their version, it's much easier. You just try to sync with it and that's all. IBM is an easier product to use.

I also have prior experience with Microsoft, but that was in 2008. At that time, there were issues with integration

It is very straightforward. It is very user-friendly integration.

It is important to consider:

• API control
• Firewall security

I have no comment on pricing.

IBM recently changed the name of this solution to IBM API-Connect. With the new name, they have added two new features, such as connecting to the cloud. 

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The message queue feature is very valuable.

The product could be improved by including more resources on SQL and improving the simplicity of the resources available. Additionally, the price can be reduced.

We have been using this solution for approximately four years and are currently using the first version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, and there are currently many people using the solution in our organization. We have plans to increase the usage of the feature.

It is quite expensive and can be lowered.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The IBM Integration Bus platform is Advanced Enterprise service bus , Typically used in SOA Environments . with newer version it can work it container based platforms and can be used to implement Micro services.

We have implemented IIB/WMB Based Solution in multiple organizations helping them to adopt Service oriented architecture , and eliminating point to point integrations.

IIB helped our clients having clean Overall solution , doing decoupling between different systems , eliminating duplicate point to point integration points . replacing legacy integration products ,and having high performing stable trouble free Enterprise service bus

IIB is feature rich product it is hard to point to a single feature , but most important is IIB supports most communication protocols out the box (SOAP/REST/HTTP/MQ/JMS/TCP/Files) 

Native support of Asynchronous calls .  support of multiple message formats (XML/JSON/ CWF/CSF/SWIFT/HL7....)

Global Transaction Co-ordination

Horizontal and Vertical Scalability .

It would be better with more API management features. 

More Micro-service and container based support. IBM is already working on it on Version 11, but it still needs improvement. 

Also IIB have cloud version ,it is doesn't have all features of the On premise version , and needs more improvement . 

IBM Integration Bus is almost perfect in terms of stability.

We can easily do the required scalability with IBM Integration Bus. We have never faced an issue. Plus, it is very straightforward.

I didn't need to contact IBM technical support very much.

In older versions, the setup was very complex. In recent releases, it's been very straightforward.

 I am working in a consultancy company. We install this for most of our clients. We develop services for them using it.

IIB very flexible.nearly limitless , You can easily overload it with duties that it's not meant to hold. Organizations needs to have strong their architecture team and SOA governance during and After implementation .to avoid overloading the ESB Layer.

I would give IBM Integration Bus an 11 out of 10. I have tried solutions from competitors Brands. There is no comparison.

My primary use case of IBM Integration Bus is for designing and developing solutions. We use App Connect Enterprise as a micro ESB and, in cases where we need rapid development, as a microservices platform as well. I'm currently dealing with an on-premises version, but it's deployed on an internal cloud. 

One of the most valuable features is how seamless and easy to use this solution is. This is a fantastic solution and a very measured product. 

There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements. 

I have been working in IBM for almost 17 years now. 

This solution is stable. It's a fantastic solution and a very measured product. We only need one person to maintain the DevOps pipeline, but we do have a team of 10 developers to deliver the work.

IBM's technical support is fantastic. Their support process is very good. 

This solution is cloud-based. We are using it in a container image, so the one time CI/CD setup is there, in the pipeline setup, and after that the process is very seamless. We just check in our code, and then the pipeline creates an image of it and deploys it onto our private cloud platform. So it's very seamless and there's no hassle involved. 

Initially, we needed about three people for deployment: one for administrative activities, one with DevOps knowledge, and one developer. 

We implemented through an in-house team. I work as an architect, but we have a DevOps team that takes care of maintaining the pipelines and as-needed administration activities. 

I generally do not get involved in the licensing or pricing because I'm a hardcore technical guy, but I'm aware of the fact that IBM is highly expensive, so not everybody can afford it. All the products are licensed. 

I have heard of MuleSoft, a platform that provides a solution for API management, ESB, everything. When it comes to ESB, they have a package or facility feature for unit testing as well, called MUnit or something. From an ESB development point of view, this is the complete package. I was lacking these features in App Connect, but I heard that the latest version includes things like unit testing, automation features, all those things. I also heard that they added AI—I'm not sure where, but IBM is pretty big on that, as well as on adding more and more features in that area. 

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. This is a very measured tool and IBM has been doing a splendid job with this particular platform. Earlier, it was only possible to have an on-premises installation, but now that it's compatible with the cloud, it's a very seamless and fantastic tool. Especially with the current release, I really like this product. 

In terms of advice I would give to those considering implementation, I would say that there could be a problem with integration. Nothing to do with the tools, but from a resourcing point of view. I've seen that a lot of people with Java expertise can face problems when being introduced to this technology without proper training. When a Java developer gets into this particular technology and starts developing stuff, they may be unaware of certain best practices, certain standards, certain conventions that should be used. In my team, when we hire new resources, Java is an advantage for us and a person with Java knowledge is highly welcome, but when we look at their knowledge in the technology itself, there may be issues. This platform is complex and only a person with the right knowledge will be able to deliver. So my suggestion to those who are considering implementation: while resourcing, ensure that you've got the right knowledge on the architect side as well as the developer side. 

Although my organization is not a bank, it does have communication needs throughout its different departments. 

While maintenance and support of the solution, like that of Dell Boomi, are very expensive, in the long run, though, say... six months to a year, it will be worthwhile for running one's business. The expense stems from the communication needs which necessitate the support of many preferences.

An issue which should be addressed concerns the difficulty of the product connecting to SAP.  In contrast, Mule has developed many connectors so that it can interact with multiple points. This allows us to write our own Java programming for, say, better database connectivity.

As the databases have different versions, we have different connectors for opening them. 

With Mule Force, we will write our own connector.  

While we do have different types of storage capacity, including that of hardware, RAM and transactions per minute, this is an area that should be addressed. There needs to be more storage capacity for logins and database file storage. Transactions per minute is a point that will need to be hammered out by senior management in its SLA. 

When it comes to the technical support of IBM Integration Bus, we are talking about a good product. As with Oracle and Microsoft, the problem with IBM revolves around maintenance, as well as integration. Owing to the expense, there will be insufficient resources. 

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus was not complex. 

The product is usually very easy to deploy.

The product was only integrated with IBM servers. 

As mentioned, the maintenance and support are very expensive. 

Every bank has data available in the mainframe and there is a need to connect to this and extract it, which is where ELT loads come in.

While I would not say that IBM Integration Bus is not a good product, I would point out that it is limited to its own infrastructure. IBM Integration Bus lacks connectors for connecting with other technologies, even though it is not limited to its one cloud. These must be developed from other technologies, such as Azure. If I wish to interact with Azure in the cloud then I must develop a connector to do so. Moreover, IBM is large and we need to have smaller solutions. 

I would rate it a four out of ten. 

We are a system integrator and this is one of the products that we propose for our clients.

Some of our clients for this product are banks.

IBM Integration Bus is flexible, easy to use, and easy to configure.

I would like to be able to build an Integration Bus cluster that is active-active.

This is a scalable product.

We have five or six customers who are using it.

I have seen no problems with respect to technical support.

We have experienced no trouble installing this product.

It takes a few days to deploy.

We have a team of 10 or 11 people for deployment and maintenance.

The pricing could be improved to make it more competitive.

This is a product that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The primary use case for the solution is infrastructure optimization. Most times the client wants to optimize their integration infrastructure and they want to simplify it. When they feel home-grown solutions are not scaling well for them in terms of complexity, in terms of speed to market, they look to this solution. Projects take long and they break down all the time. That's when the clients start thinking Integration Bus. It's a solution that offloads all the integrations of their system.

The solution offers pretty good pricing.

The technical support is great.

The solution is stable and can scale relatively easily.

The user interface is easy to navigate.

The performance is decent.

The solution offers good dashboards.

The management and monitoring on offer are very good.

IBM doesn't really have a very strong community surrounding the product. Most of its direct competitors are open source solutions, and those have an excellent and well-developed community around the tech to help users navigate the ins and outs of the product. IBM is lacking in this area. If they had more of a community, more people would know about the product. They should push to create a developer community around it and make the products more accessible to developers.

I've heard some clients are asking for autoscaling capabilities. It could improve DevOps. They might have something similar in other products, however, if they could introduce it within this product at some small level, it would make many clients happy.

We've been using the solution in the company for less than a year.

We've been pleased with the solution's reliability. It's stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. I don't recall facing any bugs or glitches. It just works well all the time.

The solution scales quite well. If a company needs to expand it out, they can do so easily.

Technical support has been good. They're responsive and knowledgeable. We've been satisfied with their support. It's been great.

The implementation is straightforward. It's not complex. What takes a long time, however, is implementing the workflows or projects. That's where the efforts is. In terms of implementation, the implementation is straightforward. However, building the integration of workflows can be a bit tricky. 

You have to pick the right project as the first project, due to the fact that you're introducing a new product inside an organization. The first project is important in terms of setting the stage for understanding the underlying functionality. It shouldn't be too complex. At the same time, it should be impactful enough that you get management support going forward. It should be a project that is big enough whereby you can see the impact of the Integration Bus. 

The pricing is pretty good. What they charge isn't unreasonable.

We're IBM partner-resellers.

The reason we've implemented the solution is driven more by our clients' demands. The clients want IBM Integration Bus, or they already have some investment in IBM Integration Bus. We want to build capability in it to support the clients. We don't have a level of experience with the solution.

My personal advice to others is to start small so that you give yourself a good preliminary base that's not too overwhelming. Most clients want to do everything with this solution, which is fine. However, it's always better to start small with a departmental project, as opposed to an enterprise-wide kind of thing. It is better to start small and tackle a practical project and get used to everything before going really big.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We implement this solution for our customers.

It has the ability to be deployed without rewriting the code. 

I would like for them to make the training much easier. Once you work with a sphere of people that can integrate the solution, then it's stable. But just to educate people, it's not that easy to do. It's not easy content to teach people.

I have been using it for over ten years. 

I have only contacted their support for implementing application integration.

Overall, they're good. They're able to replenish and reboot the data much easier.

The initial setup is straightforward.

IBM is huge once you start it up. There's not a lot of coding, not a lot of method to the mapping, and they have the need for application software management. 

I'd rate it a nine out of 10. It's stable across multiple platforms and across multiple applications. They're very strong and a trusted brand. They are patient and good friends. One of the only challenges is that it is hard to teach people.