I primarily use two previews of the product for Dev and two for QA as part of the production process. Whatever tools our company is using, the cost of a license in IBM WebSphere Message Broker is about 80% of all these software or tools. The message routing capabilities satisfy workflow efficiency. The product supports message formats of XML, JSON, and SSID, which are around 24 KB to 50 KB in size. The solution supports communication protocols like STTP and TCP. Features like DataGraph need to be introduced in IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Some of the clients of our organization are using an outdated version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker for which the vendor doesn't provide direct support anymore. For the aforementioned version, our company professionals can solve the queries on their own without seeking support from IBM. During the installation of a prior version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker, sometimes I have to configure the failovers through the cluster, where issues arise, and I often seek help from the support team. The solution is being used by some medicine companies in our organization that receive sales orders from the EDR or JDE. I would not recommend the product to others as its becoming obsolete and they can rather choose a middleware solution from Amazon or Azure. But I would overall rate the product a nine out of ten.
Senior Member Of Technical Staff at Tata Consultancy Services
Real User
2022-05-30T08:08:00Z
May 30, 2022
I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. My advice is to make use of the tool 100%. I have seen many people who aren't using it properly. There's a lot more to configure and monitor. I see they use 60% of what it gives. I advise people to just see the options and use everything and that will create a wonderful product for them.
Learn what your peers think about IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: December 2024.
If you have access to resources, it's not hard to learn to use this product. However, today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM. I would rate this solution as five out of ten.
It's a good solution but it's questionable now that microservers have come into it. I can't really comment on whether I would recommend this solution for those who are looking to implement this solution, because everyone has their own use case. I would rate IBM WebSphere Message Broker an eight out of ten. I had a good experience with this solution, and have not had any issues that we could not fix or handle.
Solution Designer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2020-10-04T06:40:25Z
Oct 4, 2020
I think it's a reasonably good solution but I also believe it has some good competitors like MuleSoft which has good incubation points and has a cloud solution. ESB is still in the data centers, not the extenders, and they're mostly on a non-cloud based platform. I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.
Enterprise Architect at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-08-09T07:19:47Z
Aug 9, 2020
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.
Integration Architect/Practice Manager at Saudi Business Machines - SBM
Real User
2020-05-04T05:12:30Z
May 4, 2020
This is a good solution and when I have a customer that needs something with this capability, it is the first option that I suggest to them. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
Independent Consultant - IT Technician Level 4 / Projects Technician at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
2019-09-25T05:10:00Z
Sep 25, 2019
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.
WebSphere Message Broker is an enterprise service bus (ESB) providing connectivity and universal data transformation for service-oriented architecture (SOA) and non-SOA environments. It allows businesses of any size to eliminate point-to-point connections and batch processing regardless of platform, protocol or data format.
The platform allows us to manage messages efficiently and route them across our services. I rate it a seven out of ten.
I primarily use two previews of the product for Dev and two for QA as part of the production process. Whatever tools our company is using, the cost of a license in IBM WebSphere Message Broker is about 80% of all these software or tools. The message routing capabilities satisfy workflow efficiency. The product supports message formats of XML, JSON, and SSID, which are around 24 KB to 50 KB in size. The solution supports communication protocols like STTP and TCP. Features like DataGraph need to be introduced in IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Some of the clients of our organization are using an outdated version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker for which the vendor doesn't provide direct support anymore. For the aforementioned version, our company professionals can solve the queries on their own without seeking support from IBM. During the installation of a prior version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker, sometimes I have to configure the failovers through the cluster, where issues arise, and I often seek help from the support team. The solution is being used by some medicine companies in our organization that receive sales orders from the EDR or JDE. I would not recommend the product to others as its becoming obsolete and they can rather choose a middleware solution from Amazon or Azure. But I would overall rate the product a nine out of ten.
I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
I give the solution a ten out of ten. I recommend the solution.
I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. My advice is to make use of the tool 100%. I have seen many people who aren't using it properly. There's a lot more to configure and monitor. I see they use 60% of what it gives. I advise people to just see the options and use everything and that will create a wonderful product for them.
If you have access to resources, it's not hard to learn to use this product. However, today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM. I would rate this solution as five out of ten.
It's a good solution but it's questionable now that microservers have come into it. I can't really comment on whether I would recommend this solution for those who are looking to implement this solution, because everyone has their own use case. I would rate IBM WebSphere Message Broker an eight out of ten. I had a good experience with this solution, and have not had any issues that we could not fix or handle.
I think it's a reasonably good solution but I also believe it has some good competitors like MuleSoft which has good incubation points and has a cloud solution. ESB is still in the data centers, not the extenders, and they're mostly on a non-cloud based platform. I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.
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.
This is a good solution and when I have a customer that needs something with this capability, it is the first option that I suggest to them. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We use the on-premises deployment model. I'd rate the solution six out of ten. I'd recommend the solution. We do plan to keep using it.
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.