IBM WebSphere Message Broker Reviews

We have a large number of use cases for this product. It is built into the underlying infrastructure for most of our applications.

We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern.

My biggest complaint about this product is the price. The cost is a significant reason why we're looking at other products right now.

Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved. Significant improvement is needed, especially when dealing with a tier-one client.

They are just now looking at Cast for their streams product, so they are a bit behind when it comes to technology. I no longer look to IBM for new technology.

We have been using the WebSphere Message Broker for more than 10 years.

We have had some issues in terms of stability.

I would say that a lot of our organization is running on this solution, although the scalability isn't perfect. I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

Our in-house software engineers are responsible for deployment and maintenance.

The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives.

We are looking at replacing our IBM solution with RabbitMQ. It is currently being used in part of our business and we are thinking about expanding it to the whole enterprise.

There is also the option of Kafka, although you really have to understand your use case before engaging with it.

My advice to anybody who is looking at WebSphere Message Broker is to fully consider their use case. In general, I suggest looking for another product because there are better options available in terms of both cost and usability.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to assist our customers with their core business challenges. The main purpose of this tool is to connect several applications together. My experience is based on two medium-sized projects that I have completed using this solution.

We have an on-premises deployment, as do many SMB in the Middle East.

This solution has improved the way our organization functions. We are using three or four services in the backend for reformatting messages, and it is straightforward to use.

This solution has many adaptors for convergence support. We need different messages formats for connection with files, databases, Excel sheets, etc.

It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format.

Performance-wise, this is a good solution.

The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is. The administration console is ok because it's used by the administration team or the technical team.

The external interfaces have limitations compared to vertical technologies such as JS frameworks like React or Angular that have lots of capability for UI and UX design.

This tool can be challenging when you use it for a really complex solution, or if you try to use it for a purpose other than what it is designed for. For example, using it as a BPM tool will be challenging.

This is a stable solution.

This solution is easy to scale. There is no limitation with respect to the number of applications that we can integrate.

I have also used Oracle Service Bus for these types of projects, and I feel that this solution is better. It is easier to use and it has better features.

The licensing costs for this solution are paid by the customer-side, and not by my employer.

IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost.

At this point, I only use twenty to thirty percent of the facilities or services that are offered by this tool. For the main purpose of the suite, I have no specific concerns about it.

This is a good product, but there are still some challenges.

If I were rating Oracle then I would give it a six out of ten.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We integrate messaging from the core banking systems to other systems via MQ.

The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution.

The solution can add container engines such as docker.

The solution is very expensive and has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for three years.

I give the stability a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for enterprise businesses.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I give the initial setup an eight out of ten.

Some of the mechanisms are a bit complex. The deployment took two years.

The solution is expensive. I give the cost a one out of ten.

We pay for an annual license.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

I recommend the solution.