IBM MQ Reviews

It's certainly a product that you can rely on. It delivers the stability and security within our applications that we desire as an organization.

The time to deployment is quick and easy. Again, it is stable, auditable, and uses automation to deploy products and keep the systems up and running while the business is still functioning.

I think the cloud is our next solution. Because we’re in the healthcare industry, I want to make sure the security is really strong and capable of keeping our members' data secure.

It's very scalable. It's very easy to build out with high availability, and you're also able to scale both vertically and horizontally very easily.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

We used all the big players and we chose IBM just because of the fact that we've used them before with other solutions. We know their capabilities. Their delivery solution team has helped guide our solutions across the board and has delivered high availability, high quality to our members.

We also used Oracle, and we also used the Tomcats and JBoss product lines.
The most important criteria when selecting a vendor is reliability; knowing that they're going to be there to support you when you need them; the ability to bring solutions to an issue in a quick manner that allows you to keep your business going.

Every application could always use improvements, but it's a very stable application and delivery solution tool that we are able to implement quickly and add applications to it quickly; keep us going in an ever-changing environment.

Guaranteed delivery of the messages and then the ability to scale the messages the way we need it according to our application, performance, and scalability.

It helps us to make sure that every time you do a swipe on your credit card, the credit card transaction is guaranteed to transact.

Some of the new features that their competitors are coming out with. Things like AMQ are coming out with - transformation of messages with the security aspect of it and even scalability with AMQ, it's scaled at the microservices level and MQ is not quite there yet.

We're currently evaluating AMQ to see if from a cost perspective it makes sense or not to switch from IBM MQ. We still have IBM MQ.

Very stable. Within the last year or so we hardly had any issues with the MQ or the queue itself going down.

Scalability good, we can scale by the application needs and also scale by the need of the application but also the need of the infrastructure. At our peak, we're able to scale and make sure the transaction goes through.

Service is good. We've been able to meet all our SLAs in the agreement that we signed with them.

We have an enterprise level agreement with IBM. If there's any issue with MQ, we have a direct line to them.

AMQ is one of them, Kafka is the other, and of course IBM MQ has always been on the list.

We chose IBM a long time ago from all the criteria I mentioned and then at the time other players were not evolving yet. IBM MQ has been an enterprise solution for many companies and the stability's there. It made a lot of sense for us to use IBM MQ back then.

Partnership with the vendor and stability of the product are most important when selecting a vendor. I mentioned AMQ earlier, and there's no guarantee that AMQ will be around next year.

Stability is key to the product and the performance of it, you can get high availability, high performance too, but we talk about tens of thousands TPS through the product so, from that perspective there's no other competitor on it.

The most valuable features of this solution are its reliability, efficiency, and the capacity to bring value.

The benefits are the satisfaction of my users (my clients), the stability of the solution, and the availability it provides.

It would be nice for the next release to have better reporting. For example, elasticsearch or ELK. We don't have that with IBM. So we have implemented our own solution.

We have a major application based on DataPowers and WebSphere servers.

We had an main issue to visualize efficiently the utilization of our WebSphere applications (load, who is using, when, how). It’s critical in defining our “capacity planning”.

Actually, we’ve developed our own reporting solution based on Kibana/Elasticsearch. Kibana analyses ours logs in real time. We have done a portal with several graphs. It is really impressive. We are very happy with our solution.

IBM doesn’t provide, by default, a reporting item as efficient as Kibana. DMGR is not as powerful and flexible.

The stability is quite good. It's strong and the performance is important.

Scalability is a bit difficult for us. Since this product is an IBM product, we have to work together with IBM to be more efficient at this point.

We are not really happy with their support. They don't have the skills to very efficiently answer our questions, so our relationship with them is difficult.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

When it's too difficult to have what we want with IBM, we develop our own, better solution and we try to integrate our own solution with IBM.

When selecting a vendor, we look for the confidence, the relationship. We have to share the same objectives and to agree in order to deliver the same value to the client.

I think the most valuable feature is the scale that it can run at. It runs millions of transactions in our environment on a daily basis, scales and works well.

I don't know if it improved my organization but it basically drives communications between a lot of our subsystems and processes. It's kind of the backbone of a lot of our services.

I think some of the management tools could be improved. We've got a variety of different management tools, that we have in place. Having them be more a core part of a product, rather than being add-ons from either other solutions or open source, would be good.

Stability is very good.

Technical support is good. For the most part, we get what we need. We did have AVP for a number of years, which was another level of support. We're reconsidering that maybe we should be going back to that level just for the more timeliness and quality of support.

There are a lot of open-source alternatives coming out now, today. Sometimes MQ can be perceived in the organization as being expensive. Price is an issue.

Where we've deployed other open-source solutions, we're not at the same scale so it's difficult to say at this point whether they do as good of a job as MQ. Obviously, we're very conservative in taking some of our core systems and moving them to unproven technologies.

There aren’t any features that they have that I wish MQ had as well. They actually tend to be a little lighter weight than MQ, in a bad way.

Make sure that whatever solution you have is going to scale to meet your needs and that you have the tooling infrastructure available to you, as well.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is, obviously, quality. Reliability of the product is number one but it needs to be cost effective, as well.

We haven't really moved into the cloud with MQ at this point.

The most valuable features are content security and content delivery, from a whole network protocol perspective.

It's adapting itself to get into every single component throughout the entire world being Java enabled.

We are able to transport data across any platform in a secure fashion, be it internal or external.

From the send and forget perspective, MQ allows you to – on your own – manage your data, collect your data, and manage your data perspective.

The barrier to success is basically the engine behind the collection of the data.

I also think the administration could be a little more straightforward. Right now, we have to develop our own truly distributed administration system. There's a GUI that's really not manageable; not that easy to use.

It's very stable.

It’s very scalable.

Technical support is responsive; it comes out of Hursley, which is their main support and development location. There is a direct line to their development; it's very good.

We were previously using all kinds of solutions, including SCP, SFTP, FTP and proprietary APIs. MQ allowed standardization to port data.

We decided to use WebSphere MQ because we needed data transport from all kinds of systems.

Responsiveness is the most important criteria for me when selecting or working with a vendor.

Initial setup was straightforward and flexible.

We did not really consider any options other than MQ.

My advice is to lay out your infrastructure in a fashion you can support.

I usually recommend IBM MQ for financial, government, and large enterprise companies. It is beneficial for handling high volumes of messages.

Using IBM MQ ensures the guaranteed delivery of messages, which is significant for my clients. It is also known for its security.

The most valuable features of IBM MQ are its guarantee of delivery, ability to handle high volume while maintaining high availability, and robust security measures such as SSL, TLS, and RBAC.

There are no improvements needed at this time.

I have been familiar with IBM MQ for roughly 20 years. It's been essential for many sectors during this time.

I rate the stability of IBM MQ as ten out of ten.

I give the scalability of IBM MQ a rating of eight out of ten.

The technical support from IBM is good.

Positive

Before IBM MQ, I was not using similar products. For comparison, I have used Kafka.

The initial setup is generally straightforward.

Part of our work is to assist customers during the installation and configuration of IBM MQ.

For an enterprise solution, the pricing of IBM MQ is very reasonable.

I have also used Kafka before.

IBM MQ has been in the market for over 20 years; it is an essential solution for most banking, financial, and government sectors.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I worked as an employee for a bank where we recommended IBM MQ, and we used it.

It's for real-time messaging, an exchange between applications.

On the IBM side, we use Message Queue, all the Message Queue products from IBM. For six years, we used it for a bank, an international bank, and we integrated all the applications synchronously using Message Queue.

IBM MQ is highly scalable and has a reconciliation mechanism. These are the two main reasons we use IBM MQ. 

IBM MQ should have more extensive documentation because I couldn't find a lot of information on the system API side to help us monitor the message queuing. 

I would like to see more documentation.

I have been using it for six years. We used it for a bank, an international bank, and we integrated all the applications synchronously using Message Queue.

It has been a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. 

The customer service and support have always been great.

Positive

I know there are competitors like RabbitMQ and Dell Boomi. I believe RabbitMQ is built on open source and they have a licensed version as well. I don't know much about RabbitMQ or Dell Boomi at this point.

IBM MQ is highly stable and quite customizable to integrate with our systems.

We definitely installed using a service provider, and it's not that complex. It's easy. It took three to six months to start implementing the first use case. 

Around six to ten people were involved in the deployment. It is easy to maintain and stable.

The ROI is  good, but we only used it for a few use cases like banking customers. It's quite stable, so we got the value out of the installation.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It's expensive, not cheap.

I would like to rate it as a seven out of ten. It is quite stable, but it needs to have more documentation, and that is why I rate it as a seven out of ten. 

At this moment, we don't see a use case for implementing AI, but it is definitely in our roadmap. We will definitely try to find a use case to implement any new features that get announced.

MQ is the middleware, which takees the files from an upstream system to a downstream system or the downstream system to an upstream system.

The system integration is good. 

The pricing needs improvement. 

I have been using IBM MQ for six years. 

The scalability is a nine out of ten. 

The initial setup is complex. 

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.