IBM MQ Reviews

We use to connect the core banking system to several other systems in our environment. We are working on an IBM server with multiple clients sending XML messages through the IBM environment using MQ. 

The end users are working on front-end services that are communicating with the servers. We are installing MQ on the backend system to act as middleware. Mainly the users are coming from somewhere else.

The monitoring could be improved. It's a pain to monitor the throughput through the MQ. The maximum throughput for a queue or single channel isn't clear. We could also use some professional services by IBM to assess and tune the performance.

I started using MQ around eight to 10 years ago.

MQ is stable, but we face some limitations with redundancy.

MQ is scalable. 

I rate IBM support eight out of 10. We've never had problems with support. 

Positive

We previously used different protocols like TCP socket connections. Now, most of the services use MQ. 

Setting up MQ is easy. We had a "grow as you go" implementation strategy. We started with a single channel and progressed to multiple queues and channels depending on the systems and integrations with other systems. It was a gradual deployment and expansion as we grew the services interacting with the core system using MQ. Maintenance requires two or three admins. 

The MQ license is a bit high.  I rate IBM MQ six out of 10 for affordability. 

We are exploring other solutions, including the Kafka platform. There are other services that can do the same thing but maybe offer some additional features, especially on the monitoring side. It may be faster as well.

We are using Confluent Kafka for some other services, and it's a good event-streaming platform. It does almost the same thing as message queuing, but we it has some other features and can do some things better than MQ.

I rate IBM MQ seven out of 10.

We have two different use cases for this solution. We use it for the interactive interconnectivity between clients into the cloud and applications communicating within our enterprise software.

I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use.

Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues.

It is intensive to maintain and train people to use the application. There has to be a certain amount of education going into the developers, as well as the infrastructure staff. This could be improved.

I have been using IBM MQ for approximately 20 years.

The solution is very stable.

We have found the solution is highly scalable. It is very easy to scale horizontally, we can scale across and make another instance of the application if we need to.

We have approximately 2,000 to 10,000 are using this solution in my organization.

The quality of service can vary depending on the level of support for different issues. If it is on an issue with what IBM does within their cloud that they control as an ASP it can be somewhat complicated because it is not visible to us. They only support and run the model for us. They will do the updates, manage, and make sure everything is working, it is an effective service but if we have an issue, we do not get that much of a response from them. However, when it is on-premise with us on our side and we talk directly to IBM and they support us fully for the application. 

The installation can be fairly simple, but when changes or modifications are necessary within the system for the implementation it can be a bit difficult. We standardize a lot of the process whether it is using Jenkins or Pipelines, or another solution to make it as simple as possible. However, when we make changes and more errors and configuration problems come up, it can be quite difficult to narrow down those problems. Generally, we automate most of this part which has limited the impact but the process could be improved.

Since we automate a lot of the deployment elements I am not sure the breakdown of how long it takes for each part, but typically all together it takes approximately half a day.

We do the implementation of the solution.

This solution is a message exchanges system for queuing messages. The messages come in and if they are rejected or if they fail to be received, they sometimes fall into something that is called a dead letter queue, queues that are dead, or queues that are ineffective. Those have to be maintained and monitored at all times. There is quite a lot of attention needed. It is extremely critical and the robustness is extreme when it is on the edge. When it is in the enterprise is not that bad, but if it is on the edge, outward-facing to the client, we do a lot of work to maintain and ensure that it is working at all times.

You have to license per application installation and if you expand vertically or horizontally, you will be paying for more licenses. The licenses are approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a license, it can get expensive quite quickly.

We maintain and support a lot of applications across a wide enterprise. Therefore the cost of licenses increases with each individual implementation of a client because we have to pay for licenses. We are looking for an alternative solution to reduce costs by going to an open-source messaging system because we do not need the robustness of IBM MQ.

I have evaluated Rabbit MQ.

If you want a robust enterprise application that you know is going to be around that you can trust and you are very comfortable with the concept that you are going to pay for that stability and robustness, then IBM MQ is the best choice. If you are on a lighter throughput or you do not need to worry about the robustness as much then Rabbit MQ could be the better choice. It is a fairly stable application, and it works very well but you do not have that industrialization and long-term code benefit that you receive from IBM WebSphere. If your use case and budget fit then this solution would be a great choice.

We have used the application for a long time. I understand it, how it works and therefore I feel comfortable with it. From a pure usage standpoint, it is great. It will handle anything, but you have to be willing to understand that you are getting into something you cannot go backward on very easily. You cannot easily swap another suitable or similar application out without a lot of work involved. You have to be very careful what you are trying to accomplish with your software.

I rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

There were some long-running processes where it was timing out. We got the request from this source application, and we put the data into IBM MQ. Then, we read the data from IBM MQ before doing the rest of the processing. Especially for real-time processes, we have just decoupled it into two different ways to ensure there is no time-out.

The publish and subscribe features are the most useful aspects of the solution.

It's not too difficult to set up the solution. 

It's stable.

Technical support is quite helpful. 

The moment you send the data, there is no latency there.

We haven't experienced any data loss. 

If they could have some front-end monitoring tool that could be easily available for the team to use, that could be great. While you may not be able to edit your messages, at least if you could look at them, see the queue, and what's inside, et cetera, that would be helpful. We'd like visibility on the health of the environment. 

I've used the solution for two years. 

The stability is good. In fact, we have not seen any issues. Only recently have we observed an issue. There was a limit on the number of messages it could contain. We are having an issue now, however, we have not usually seen any issues related to IBM MQ. Therefore, in general, the solution is stable. I'd rate its reliability eight out of ten. 

I haven't seriously explored the scalability of the product and therefore don't know the full scope of scalability.

We handle about 300 to 400 transactions per day. 

Technical support is very helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support we get. 

Positive

I have previously used TIBCO EMS as well. 

The initial setup is pretty easy. It's not that complex. I'd rate the ease of implementation at a seven or eight out of ten.

The deployment time is pretty short. It's not a long process. 

In an integration scenario, like payment processing, where the payment has to go to the backend system, SAP, or talk to multiple applications, due to the fact that it's a lengthy, complex business process, we just decouple it. Some of the information we get immediately after receiving the request, and we pass on the information to the customer. Then, we put the payload into the IBM MQ, and then we started processing from IBM MQ. So there are integrations that sometimes need to be done or worked with. 

We have an admin team that does the configuration and setup of the solution. They can do it in one or two business days. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using this product. For example, we've had no data loss since using the solution

A different team handles the setup, and likely they also handle the licensing. I don't have any visibility on the cost of the product. 

I'm a user and customer. I'm not a core developer of IBM MQ. However, I'm a user of IBM MQ.

I'd recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it seven out of ten overall. 

The solution is primarily used for business transactions. It's used for financial transactions as well. Those are the two main use cases. We exchange information with our in-house applications before we supply information to our customers and so on.

The messaging queue is the main feature that we use. We use other products like publish and subscribe, which are very useful to us as well. 

We can share data and other people can subscribe to it. 

The solution is very stable.

The solution can scale well.

We've found the installation to be extremely straightforward and well laid out.

It's easy to maintain, easy to administer, and easy to see what's going on there. Overall, it's a good product.

Technical support is excellent.

The way the solution provides us with the product and the way we use it gives us what we need. We don't actually have any issues with it. 

There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily. However, apart from that, it works well. 

The pricing is definitely could be cheaper. Also, the support model, even though it's very good, could be cheaper as well.

I've been working with the solution for about 25 years or so. It's a good amount of time. I have a lot of experience.

The product offers good stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance.

The product scales well. If a company would like to expand, it can do so. It's not a problem.

It's hard to say who exactly is working on the solution at this time. We have around 30,000 people working on it, in some way or the other.

We've got to keep using it for the foreseeable future. We don't see any reason not to as it provides us with a good solid platform. We have no reason to change anything.

We have found the technical support to be very good. They are responsive and knowledgeable. They are also very friendly. We are satisfied with the level of support we receive. As soon as we raise any issue, they get in touch with us and sort it out. It's great.

We did not previously use a different solution. We started with IBM MQ a long, long time ago and we stuck with it.

The initial setup is not complex. It is a very simple installation. I've been provided with instructions that make the whole solution extremely easy to download and install.

The entire process is very fast. It only takes about 30 minutes to deploy.

We have different departments that can handle deployments. We have about 100 people on our team that can handle this type of assignment.

This is a licensed product. We do pay for it.

While, of course, it would be better if it was cheaper, the service they provide with it, including the maintenance facilities they provide, is very good. We're quite happy. Most people have to use what IBM provides, however, it could be a cheaper license.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

I'd recommend the solution to any organization.

I'd rate it ten out of ten. It really provides everything we need.

The product does not allow users to access data from API or external networks since it can only be used in a closed network, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using IBM MQ for fourteen years. My company is a customer of the product. I don't remember the version of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around 15 to 20 people in my company use the solution.

The product is used whenever there is a need to use it in the development phase. Once the tool is deployed on a particular site, we don't need to use the product until and unless any issues or errors are reported.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Before IBM MQ, my company used to use normal point-to-point APIs. My company started to use IBM MQ because we wanted to introduce standardization in our processes.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I rate the product price a four on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price.

IBM MQ streamlined our company's application-to-application communication since it is a rigid and robust solution that allows you to transfer data from one system to another system using the tool's adapters. In general, the product is very robust.

A scenario where IBM MQ reliability was critical for our company's operations includes an incident involving three to four of our clients who use the product, among which a few are airports situated in regions like Delhi and Bangalore in India. All the big airports use IBM MQ as an integration platform, so it is considered a tier-one application. In the aforementioned areas, there is a need for a tool that offers scalability and robustness.

The feature of IBM MQ, which I found to be most instrumental for our messaging needs, stems from the fact that my company never lost messages when we were using the product. The product has a queue manager, and the message doesn't go anywhere until and unless you read it. The best part of the product is that it ensures that there is no data loss.

IBM MQ's security features have enhanced the data transmission process in our company since it functions in a very secure manner. Nobody can get unauthorized access to the product.

The product offers very good scalability to support business growth.

IBM MQ's integration capabilities with other systems are beneficial since we have developed many interfaces for many airports. Many systems use IBM MQ to send data from one system to another, so it has helped in a great way when it comes to the integration part.

I rate the overall tool an eight to nine out of ten.

We mainly use IBM MQ when creating the integration buses for different customers. For example, for creating external API for the internal systems, we use IBM MQ quite extensively.

The interface is good, and we work using API functionality in the main part of our projects. The solution is easy to understand and even medium developers can easily start using it.

More documentation would be good because some features are not deeply implemented.

I have been using the solution for more than ten years. 

It is a stable solution. I rate the stability nine out of ten.

The solution is highly scalable. We have a number of projects with more than one hundred thousand users. I rate the scalability ten out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. If the required access and permissions are provided, the deployment takes one day or less. But in most cases, we wait for some permissions or access to systems to finish the deployment on the customer site. One DevOps employee is enough for the deployment.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten.

The pricing seems good according to the functionality that the solution provides.

It is a very stable and scalable product and is a market leader in its appropriate sector. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use it as our enterprise messaging bus, not from the transformation use cases. It's mainly from the messaging use cases only. We use it for connecting to mainframes predominantly.

It was the main messaging bus for us for a very long time. Therefore, we have applications connecting, and even some of the modern applications are still using MQ. From a company's productivity perspective, we see a lot of benefits. It's all point-to-point connectivity. For any point-to-point messaging needs, MQ is very good.

The reliability is great. You will not see a case of a message loss in IBM MQ unless there's a queue full or there's some issue with the capacity of the queue. I haven't seen any issues with respect to the message loss. That's the main thing I like about MQ.

It's very robust.

It's a stable product.

Support is helpful and there is lots of good documentation available. 

The solution can potentially scale. 

While there is support for API, it's not like the modern API capabilities. If you want to automate the creation of queues and topics, IBM provides command-line utilities. It does provide API capability; it's just not that complete.

They should make CI/CD available. There is no CI/CD support from the product. Maybe MQ should think about the modern way to handle deep-based development. 

As a user, I have about eight to nine users of experience with this solution. 

Stability-wise, we have no problems. It's very stable. 

Scalability-wise, in terms of the implementations that we have currently, it's not quite scalable. The implementations that we had were more active-passive kind of implementations up until now. There are product features that came up that allow it to scale. We understand it is scalable. However, we still need to explore it. There's a new HA capability that has come from IBM, which is a cloud-native replica set way of doing it. It's possible, it's just more difficult how we have it arranged.

We have a user base of millions and maybe 50 to 100 developers working on the solution. 

With MQ, we are trying to reduce usage since we have better products to support JMS. Most of the applications are Java-based applications, which have native support for JMS. We only use MQ right now for mainframe use cases. For all the other messaging use cases, we use Solace.

Technical support is quite good. They are some of the best. They are responsive.

Since we've used IBM for a very long time, we need to rely on them less. Most issues can be dealt with by looking at the documentation, which is available online. You often do not even have to reach out to support. That said, if you do, they are great.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

From an implementation perspective, it was hard for the features that we were using. However, recently, it has become quite easy to implement.

The setup team is a bigger team due to the size of MQ in the company, which is quite huge. We have around 200 managers and the size of the team is around 20 members and they can all assist with deployment tasks.

The initial setup is done by our deployment team. In fact, I currently work in pipeline development for MQ, so it's easy to implement.

Returns are quite good for the amount that you pay, since, with IBM products, you see fewer bugs.

I don't have any information related to licensing costs. 

We likely have an enterprise license, based on the size of infra that we have. My understanding is it is not very expensive. However, for a new company, it may be pricier.

We get everything in a bundle. There are no extra costs involved. 

I didn't look into other options. When I arrived at the company, MQ was already there. They've used it for even longer than I have - for maybe 15 years. 

We are customers and end-users.

We have various versions that we use, including versions 7 and 9.1. We have both cloud and on-prem deployments and mainly deal with on-premises. 95% is on-premises. 

If you're looking for a guaranteed messaging platform, MQ is quite good. That said, it might be expensive for new organizations. If you're looking for a cheaper option, maybe you may need to look for other MQ open-source protocols or open-source products. You may not get the same guaranteed message delivery experience that you have with MQ. However,  it might be more affordable. With MQ, from a reliability perspective, you see very few bugs. It's been running in the bank for a long time. We have very few cases where we had to reach out to IBM support. It's just too bad they do not have CI/CD capabilities.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

It's wonderful and is our primary backbone for moving data across different applications, within our company. Especially when we're talking about the healthcare and pharmacy industries, where we have patients' critical data, this is what we use to move data across. It's our backbone for data transmission.

The important thing for us at this point is the amount of data that we move, the guaranteed delivery and message affinity that it offers. These are very critical features when you talk about patient data.

It has definitely brought a lot of benefit into our organization, especial when you talk about applications talking to each other. For example, when you look at a patient's experience, i.e., from the moment the patient comes in, sees the doctor, the doctor makes a lab/pharmacy order and by the time a patient goes through the lab, the data needs to be there. It provides a lot of value in moving the patient data from the entry point until the patient gets out of the building.

One of the features to pinpoint is migration. When we want to migrate from one version to another, it takes years. So, definitely, we want to see some solution for IBM's standpoint, in order to make it easy for the customers to migrate from one version to another.

There are some operation challenges; however, it could be not because of the product but instead in terms of how we use it. We might be looking for improvements by adding some self-service capabilities, in order to go through the hoops of different teams to get the objects created. Thus, this will make it easy for the developers to access some of those things.

There were no issues in regards to the stability or scalability so far. Like I mentioned elsewhere, I've been using it for years now and it has really matured, at this point. We are really happy.

Lately, quality of the technical support is not that good, as it used to be in the past. IBM supports us from the infrastructure's standpoint to the part where they provide us product support as well. So, one of the things that we did notice recently was that the qualified people who were supporting all this stuff are not there anymore.

It is important to understand how to implement it and for what exactly you want to implement it. Sometimes, we get into a situation where you may not be choosing the right solution and may not really need MQ to support your product. You may be expecting something that MQ doesn't offer, so it is important to understand your business requirements and the features that MQ offers, in order to see if it is effective in implementing the solution.

The important thing while selecting a vendor is to help the customer go through the implementation phase. One of the typical situations that we run into are the people who you're interacting with, i.e., from a customer's standpoint, the vendor may or may not have the comparable knowledge that is required to make them move to where they want to go. That's the challenge we face across all our vendors. It doesn't have to be an escalation all the time so as to get what you want. The person you're working with should be knowledgeable enough to take the customer from the start to the end.