IBM MQ Reviews

IBM MQ is used to ensure that transactions are properly handled.

The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is transaction processing.

I have been using IBM MQ for approximately 10 years.

IBM MQ is stable.

The scalability of IBM MQ is good.

We have only customer transactions using IBM MQ.

I have used the support from IBM MQ. There is some room for improvement.

I rate the support from IBM MQ a four out of five.

Positive

I have not used another solution prior to IBM MQ.

The initial setup of IBM MQ is complex.

The price of IBM MQ could improve by being less expensive.

I rate the price of IBM MQ a three out of five.

I choose IBM MQ over other solutions because of personal comfort.

I would recommend IBM MQ to others that are using major transaction processing.

I rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

IBM MQ can be used as an integrated bus system in an API for message queuing.

The solution is easy to use and has good performance.

I have been working with IBM MQ for a few months.

The solution is stable.

The scalability of the solution is good.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support from IBM is very good, they are responsive, and customer friendly.

The installation is not difficult for IBM MQ and takes approximately one day.

We have approximately seven engineers and administrators that do the implementation and maintance.

The price of the solution could be reduced, and we are on an annual subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate IBM MQ a nine out of ten.

We use it for data integration.

It's very stable. 

It also has a backup queue concept and topics, features that I have not seen anywhere else. I like these features very much.

It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions.

I've been dealing with IBM MQ for the last six months.

It's scalable. It's not for every use case, but you can scale it.

We have about 50 users of IBM MQ.

The technical support is good.

The setup is between straightforward and complex. It's not as straightforward as Apache ActiveMQ.

We did the setup.

I like Kafka more. MQ is number-two compared to Kafka.

It's a good product but I think it's too costly. That's one disadvantage because there are already many open-source products, like RabbitMQ, Kafka, and ActiveMQ. If you really need a solid MQ solution then go with IBM MQ. If you don't need such a robust solution then you can go with any of the other solutions.

I would rate IBM MQ at seven out of 10. It has less throughput.

We use IBM MQ for message transmission between our customers, and their agents or global message service providers, such as SITA or ARINC, for tier one critical applications.

Applications are time critical, and IBM MQ has played a significant role in ensuring fast, reliable message transmissions. With IBM MQ in place, fear of messages getting lost in the case of an unplanned failure is almost none.

• Data integrity, reliability and security are very important to our business.
• No messages are lost, and recovery is good in case of any serious failures.
• No dependency on the end party service's run status.

No technical issues come to mind.

In terms of cost, IBM MQ is slightly on the higher side.

Its scalability and uptime is very high. So, these are the two main valuable features of this product. We rarely see any downtime on MQ's side of the product.

It helps us, i.e., even if some of the other apps are down, we don't lose any of the customer data, so it's very beneficial from that perspective.

We would like to see more clustering, high availability, and also monitoring features. Monitoring is a big part. We would like to see if we get back out queues or the queue depth goes high, so that we can be alerted on that.

It still needs some improvement, in terms of high availability and the clustering needs to be improved. Monitoring is a big piece which is missing.

We have been using this solution for the past ten years.

For the stability of this product, I would give it a 9/10 rating. Only sometimes when some queue manager dies, then at that point, we lose a couple of messages but not a whole lot.

I would give the technical support a 7/10 rating because we do get the response back, but a lot of time gets wasted in carrying out processes such as getting and sending logs, instead of coming online and sharing the screen and troubleshooting the issue.

We work with Proficient Solutions, Inc. and Prolifics. There are others as well, but these are the two major ones.

The number one criteria while selecting a vendor is availability. The other factors that we look for are proximity, their technical knowledge, market reputation and of course the pricing policy.

It's a good product. Compared to the other products on the market, it's a very good product. Based on your company needs, you should give it a try and it should work.

The scalability of the environment is the most valuable feature. We also like the speed and the manageability of this tool.

It keeps all of our large systems interconnected, so the MQ is at the base of all of our system integration.

I would like better control over the depth of messages that go in there from all the learning and notifications, better management tools around queue depth, queue issue, that kind of stuff. If things are backing up in the queue, getting better at learning from a dashboard of how the whole ecosystem of MQ is running, that'd be really nice. Because we're using a third party to get that now.

Stability is very strong. We haven't had any issues.

We really like the multi-channel queue manager that allows us to have different entries into the queue and manage that traffic; kind of splitting it out. That gives us an immense amount of scale as we add new applications.

We have used support. They are okay. Opening a PMR is a pain in the neck. When you're in a critical event, you don't want to go open up a web ticket. You want to get somebody on the phone, it could fix the problem now. We get that it all goes with the support level and we are pretty high.

We had a mainframe that had MQ associated to it, so we just kept it going forward.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Study hard, and implement small, and then scale.

Responsiveness, the tool, and price are what I look for in a vendor.

The product encourages the idea of asynchronous processing, which means that the sender and receiver are not required to be active and running at the same time. The message will be saved to the receiver queue until the system starts successfully and pulls it for processing. This is typically used in all internet banking functions that receive their data from different bank systems.

• Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7.
• Seamless integration with IBM WebSphere Application Server, which is the most stable application server I ever worked with.
• Installed and configured at Windows, AIX and IBM i mostly the same way and set of commands.

They need to add the ability to send full messages (header + payload) from the MQ Explorer program, not just the payload.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

I would rate the technical support as good, 8/10.

I previously used ActiveMQ, but I switched to IBM MQ due to the robustness of the solution.

If you are familiar with IBM products, you will find initial setup straightforward.

IBM MQ has a flexible license model based on the Processor Value Unit (PVU) and I recommend it.

We evaluated Active MQ also.

I would advise the potential user to read about security considerations and compliance with security standards.

Mainly we are using MQ to pass the orders in the format of messages. We use MQ mainly for all the asynchronous messages that we pass.

It's easy to use and also quite compatible with all the language technologies where they can read messages and they can push messages to Java. It's easy to integrate and compatible with most coding languages.

The solution is stable.

I have found that the solution scales well. 

The integration capabilities could be even easier. 

I've been using the solution for a while now. It's been maybe ten or 15 years. 

The stability has been good. The performance is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's easy.

We have a team of about five on the solution right now. 

We do not have plans to increase the number of users at this time. 

IBM technical support for any product is pretty much the same across the board. I have no complaints. They are okay. They are fast and knowledgeable. 

We have been using MQ for a long time. In the past we were using a custom-developed framework instead of MQ, however, that was ten to 15 years ago.

I can't speak to how the initial setup went. Those kinds of tasks are handled by the technology team. Therefore, I can't say if it was an easy or complex process.

I'm not sure, ultimately, how long the deployment process was.

I wasn't a part of the process. I can't say if we enlisted outside help or not. 

You do need to pay a licensing fee in order to use this product. We pay it on a yearly basis. 

I'm not following the versioning part. I'm not sure which version we are using currently. 

I'd advise new users to try it out as it is easy to integrate, scalable, and stable. 

I'd rate the solution, in general, at a seven out of ten.