IBM Integration Bus Reviews

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. 

Our prime use case of Integration Bus is for message enrichment and message transformations. 

The solution offers good performance and it's stable. The message enrichment and message transformations are great features and the solution also has great security.

There are a few issues; the memory footprint needs to be improved. Memory replacements for on-prem should be minimized. Nowadays, if an application takes 4GB of RAM, that should be the minimum. Having this solution on-prem, is taking more memory and that memory footprint should be minimized.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution can be scaled horizontally and vertically.

The initial setup is straightforward and took a maximum of two hours. Our technical team had eight people dealing with the end-to-end deployment. 

I recommend this solution, it's an industry standard product.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

The interface is quite stable.

Licensing is too high. It is quite expensive. We don't have a lot of clients who apply for it because they cannot justify the price. They know it's a good product but it just is too expensive for them. So we have to send them to products that are cheaper. 

It's scalable. We don't have that concern for IBM products.

Expanding the product would depend on our client's needs. We don't have any restrictions. 

Our installation is quite fast, but the process or the competition of user testing is what takes a longer time. Normally the user has to do a Tableau test, so it's not just the deployment. After the installation, they have to spend time to test.

I would rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

We are looking forward to the pricing packaging because we do like the product, but we are don't go for it because the price is too high and we not able to sell it to our customer.

I am a developer and this is one of the products that I use in that capacity.

What I like best are the monitoring features.

Technical support is something that should be better.

Lowering the price would be an improvement.

The deployment should be easier.

I have been working with IBM Integration Bus for approximately three years.

This is a stable product.

We have not needed to scale because we use multithreading in the flow.

The technical support for this product is not very good. Sometimes, examples we get when we ask support for help do not work.

It also does not have a large community.

We did not use a similar product before implementing IBM Integration Bus. In some instances, we have used microservice applications instead.

The deployment is complex and you need to have an experienced administrator.

The price of this product could be lower.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

A retail customer used it to connect with the backend Oracle retail system. There were some plugins that were available for that particular use case on top of the Integration Bus for message transformation, schemas, etc. It has also been widely used in banking.

It is mostly deployed on the hardware, but it is also available on the cloud.

It aligns well with containerized environments, which increases its scalability and high availability. 

Overall, it has good coverage of features.

Its licensing or subscription model should be improved for more flexible adoption. There should also be more ease of use.

I used this solution for five to six years in my previous company.

It is highly scalable. It is used in high-volume environments with thousands of users, such as retail banking. It is being used a lot for digital banking, and all the transactions are through the ESB layer. So, it is quite scalable and has good performance.

It has a moderate or medium-level complexity. The duration depends on the use case in terms of the number of services and workflows, but typically, doing installation and configuration is a matter of a few weeks.

It is not cheap. It has its cost. It is one of the high-cost solutions.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.