IBM MQ Reviews

The solution allows one to easily configure an IBM MQQueueManager. It's very easy and demonstrates comparatively better performance than that of other products. It is very good and makes it impossible to lose a message. These are very important advantages of the solution, but the greatest one is its robustness. 

It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use. Maybe we could implement them in cluster scenario and use the active/active nodes.

We have been using IBM MQ for around 20 years.

The onboarding processes and setup are very easy. 

We solely make use of IBM MQ and are an MQ customer. 

I rate IBM MQ as a nine out of ten. 

The subscribe and publish features are excellent. We use them a lot.

The usability of the solution is very good.

There isn't that much happening with the installation consoles and monitoring consoles. This could be improved.

We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better.

The pricing could be better.

I've been using the solution for ten years. It's been a decade so far, therefore, it's been a rather long time overall.

The technical support has been pretty good. Every time I've used it, they were pretty good and I found them to be knowledgeable and responsive. I'm quite happy with their level of service.

The pricing could be lower. It's not the cheapest option out there. However, I don't have comparison prices with other solutions at this time. We're working on comparison pricing currently.

We are currently evaluating other options. We are starting the comparison now and we are starting on the technical scope, not on the budget. However, we will also consider pricing as we evaluate other potential options for our company.

We're just a customer. We don't have any business affiliation with the organization.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this solution at a nine.

The number one thing is it's pretty reliable with data integration. It gets done what we need to do; transport messages from source to destination.

It is the core component of what we do. We're using it to distribute messages from one platform to different multiple platforms.

We're moving to the next version. I really don't have anything I want improved. There are unknown bugs that we run across where we don't know where they are from, and the next fix pack will fix it.

Stability is pretty good, really. We have not had any downtime.

Scalability is good.

My colleagues have used technical support. I would say it's good.

I wasn't part of the decision to switch.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Use it.

For Rogers, MQ is the cornerstone for the billing system for cable. It's accessed through the help desk and through the online stores. It's a very valuable piece of software that interfaces with the customers; there are well over 8 million customers.

Using MQ, because of the speed of getting the transactions, adds the value back to the customers. When you are dealing with a customer in the store, you don't want to be sitting and waiting for transactions to come back on the customer information, the CIF file. Having MQ with the instant response adds value back to the customer's experience.

Price is one thing that could be improved.

Probably because I don't know how it interfaces with the cloud, I would like to see more of that functionality; get more of the cloud experience and more of the mobile experience back into MQ from the customers. That's something I don't have right now.

I think MQ could go farther in terms of the customer experience.

Stability is awesome. MQ is up all the time. We never have an MQ issue. The interfaces that feed into MQ are quite stable and the APIs associated with it are quite proficient. MQ is a very efficient piece of software from a CPU utilization perspective, which I'm interested in. It's very productive and it's quite tuned in terms of performance.

It's quite easy to scale out and to build other regions using MQ. We've developed a peak performance testing area with MQ and we're planning on putting it in the sandbox area to gain more experience before we roll out versions of it. It's quite easy and adaptable to implement into other regions.

I have not used technical support.

It's a very stable product. It's been out in the industry for years. Many industries use it, so it fits into any commodity that you have. It's a very solid product. Give it a try, look at it and understand what it's used for.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are reputation, post-support, reliability, and improvements on the product.

They’re not really using MQ to connect across cloud, mobile, or devices as part of the internet of things.

• Guaranteed message delivery
• Easy to use
• Works for both distributed and host applications

It allows us to do real-time claims processing through a non-host platform into the host platform.

A better user interface; right now, it's technician dependent, so it's a tech support role. It would be nice if we could provide better interfaces to see the queues, the channels and how they're used, and the queue depths.

We've been using it for 25-30 years.

It is solid. We have no stability problems with MQ.

It's solid, and it scales.

I personally have not used technical support. As a corporation, we have, and it is solid.

If you have the right technologist, it's a good tool.

It works. It scales. It does what we need it to do. It's stable. It's a technology that, again, is platform agnostic.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is: Is it a partner or is it someone that's just looking to get paid?

We are not using MQ to connect across cloud, mobile, and devices as part of the internet of things, so much. It's more for internal.

The barrier to success is that I haven't had a business need to use MQ. We use DataPower instead.

The most valuable features are messaging between applications; sending messages. We use it a lot to communicate with the IBM SIS service.

Actually, we didn't have a choice. If we wanted to speak with IBM SIS, it was the way to do it, so we had no choice there. We had to do it.

There are some part of the business side that couldn't be done without it. It's an integral part.

It would be nice to actually have something like a dashboard. I've been to a presentation about the PowerHA. They now have something like a dashboard, where you can see the health of your nodes and stuff. It would be great to have a dashboard like this. I think there is MQ Explorer, which does that, but I haven’t found it. I would like to use it more to work with the queues, and less to see the health of the environment.

It’s reliable and it's quite all right to work with, but I would like the tools to be easier to work with on a day-to-day basis. For instance, the logs and stuff. For now, we just use the command line when we go in the log directory for each queue manager. It's not very, very easy to operate.

Stability is good. It's okay.

Scalability is okay but it can get a little complicated. The application should really be aware of the way it works. We had quite a few issues where the app wasn’t able to talk to many queues. We didn't know that much about MQ; the dev team didn't know a lot about MQ, we did not know a lot about how to code for MQ. It was kind of difficult conversation there.

I strongly suggest taking good training first, so you will really know the product and know how to implement it. Then, everything should be fine.

Stability and support are the most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with.

It's one of our core parts of a middleware platform for integrating our CRM billing application and our online transaction application as well. That's the key usage for day-to-day activities.

Integration is a key benefit; it integrates easily. Management is easy. Queue management is one of the key features of it; how easy it is to get set up, get started, get running, look at your queues, look at your workloads, etc., and see what's going on.

We’re not using MQ to better connect across cloud, mobile and devices, or part of the internet of things. It's something that we're looking at for IoNT. We're looking at doing mobile parking, our parking meters. It's something that we're looking at, but we're just doing the road mapping. We haven't deployed that yet.

Currently, it's our connection between our web front end and our back end billing, but that's the next step.

Everything that we need so far works, so I think I'd have to look at the road map, what we planned for internet of things and see if it meets that, which it should. At that point, we'll have a better understanding of what we need going forward.

My support guys, because they use it on a day-to-day basis, might want to see improvements from a management perspective, the management interface. That's one of the complaints I've heard: modernize to a more mobile platform. It's not modern enough for what they wanted to do with it, from what I've heard. That's one area I would say improvement could be done, but again, that might be a small component. Beyond that, nothing.

The main reasons why I haven’t rated it higher is the management interface, which has been a topic of discussion among some of the users, and some issues we’ve had with MQ for z/OS; that's probably because we were on an older version. I haven't looked at the newer version. Those are the two main reasons.

As far as the price point, I don't deal with that; that's somebody else's problem. From a deployment perspective, I didn't have an issue. It's a set up and go for me, from an architect's perspective. These are the requirements, these are the design, you go.

Stability is pretty good. We haven't had issues from a stability perspective. It seemed to always be running. Everyone seems to say, "Hey, it's an MQ issue." Once you look at it, though, the bottleneck is always somewhere else.

Scalability is great as well. You can create your queue managers or you can add a node if you need to and just grow your platform.

I personally haven't used technical support, so I can’t comment on that. Once it's deployed, the support team manages everything into it.

I was not involved in the decision to invest in MQ.

I was in the initial setup; I was involved in the design of the environment for MQ and the rollout of that platform.

It was midway between straightforward and being complex. Our environment is quite complex. We have to integrate the different systems; we have MQ on z/OS, we have MQ distributed. It's right across the platform. The setup of MQ was not complex, but the integration with our environment had some complexity. Overall, with the MQ platform, I don’t think we could have done it any easier.

It's a great tool. It's a great integration middleware tool. Once you have your requirements set, MQ should meet it, but review: Make sure that you understand what you need, what you're setting up, and how you're going to deploy it.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is how easy it is to get the information from that vendor. Usually, when we get a project, it needs to be deployed yesterday; very tight timelines. If a vendor can come to the forefront, come with all the information, show that their product will meet our needs and it's above any other product on the market, or even on par, but you get a little bit of extra service or support, that's what we look for.

IBM MQ could improve capacity, monitoring, and automatization.

I have been using IBM MQ for approximately 22 years.

IBM MQ is a stable solution, it is used mainframe computers and it is secure.

The scalability of IBM MQ is good.

We have approximately 100 people using this solution in my company.

The support from IBM MQ is good.

IBM MQ has a complex setup. The time it takes for deployment take approximately two to three months.

We have a special contract with IBM MQ that give us a certain price.

I am satisfied with the solution overall.

We have five to six people for the maintenance of this solution.

I rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.