IBM MQ provides reliable message delivery, supporting integration across systems with features like security and data integrity. It's widely used in financial and healthcare sectors, offering high scalability and availability while maintaining message consistency during downtime.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| IBM MQ | 20.7% |
| ActiveMQ | 19.8% |
| VMware Tanzu Data Solutions | 9.6% |
| Other | 49.9% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Message Queue (MQ) Software | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | IBM MQ vs ActiveMQ | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | IBM MQ vs Amazon SQS | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | IBM MQ vs MuleSoft Anypoint Platform | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MuleSoft Anypoint Platform | 4.0 | 6.1% | 92% | 62 interviewsAdd to research |
| VMware Tanzu Data Solutions | 4.0 | 9.6% | 89% | 85 interviewsAdd to research |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 18 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 16 |
| Large Enterprise | 118 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 366 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 136 |
| Large Enterprise | 540 |
IBM MQ is known for its reliable and guaranteed message delivery, high scalability, and seamless integration with diverse systems. Users find its data integrity and robust security particularly beneficial, making it ideal for critical environments. It efficiently handles large message volumes, ensuring no data loss even during outages. Ease of use and initial setup, along with stability, are frequently noted advantages. However, users express a desire for better interfaces and enhanced cloud integration. Administration and security features are sometimes considered complex, necessitating streamlined processes and modern graphical interfaces. Expanded monitoring, competitive pricing, improved connectivity with platforms like Kafka and RabbitMQ, and seamless integration opportunities are commonly suggested areas for improvement.
What Are the Key Features of IBM MQ?IBM MQ is extensively implemented in critical industries such as finance and airlines, where reliable data exchange is essential. It supports message delivery in diverse platforms, facilitating crucial business transactions and scalable web services. Organizations in these sectors leverage its stability, high performance, and integration with both distributed and mainframe environments for consistent and reliable communication, helping to reduce the risk of data loss.
IBM MQ was previously known as WebSphere MQ.
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise Technical Leader at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I use IBM MQ primarily for ACE and B2B applications, and it’s been reliable, fast, and stable over the years. Though pricey, it scales well, offers solid support, and I’d rate it an eight out of ten. |
| Senior Manager, MW & DB Automation at a computer software company with 11-50 employees | 5.0 | I rate IBM WebSphere Application Server and MQ 10/10. I praise their superiority, high availability, and integration. Support is excellent. My only concern is WebSphere's future Java support after 2030. |
| Integration Solution Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees | 4.5 | I've used IBM MQ for four years and appreciate its stability, support, and security, but scaling limitations and licensing costs have led us to transition to Apache Kafka for better flexibility and cost efficiency. |
| Director, At Tiaa Senior Technical Lead at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees | 4.5 | I've used IBM MQ for about ten years, mainly for asynchronous API integrations. It's stable, scalable, and supports JMS well, though I’d like improved message rollback features. Overall, it's excellent for workflow messaging. |
| Information Technology Solution Consultant | 4.0 | In the banking industry, I utilize IBM MQ for seamless integration between Mainframes and distributed servers, enhancing application development. Despite its security strengths, I've experienced subpar customer support and haven't compared it closely with other messaging solutions. |
| SWIFT manager at Raiffeisen Bank Aval | 4.5 | We use IBM MQ for payment processing across countries in a stable production environment. It's reliable, well-documented, and secure, though accessing IBM support is challenging. Improvements could include additional features and a graphical interface. Pricing comparisons are unavailable. |
| Dev lead at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees | 3.5 | I use IBM MQ as a reliable middleware solution for our enterprise. Its stability and resilience make it top-notch, though it needs better cloud compatibility. It effectively integrates systems, offering ROI despite lacking direct financial impact. |
| Software Engineer IV at Royal Cyber Inc. | 5.0 | We use IBM MQ for handling large volumes of financial transactions with backend systems, ensuring messages aren't lost. Its reliable message delivery supports revenue generation. I currently find no need for improvements and appreciate the cost savings and ROI. |
| Vice President - Senior IT Audit Manager at Northern Trust Corporation | 4.5 | I primarily use IBM MQ for data transfers and configuring queues within applications. Its most valuable feature is its reliability and strong security. It's still in a research phase, so specific improvements are difficult to suggest. |
| Senior Software Test Analyst at CoCre8 Technology Solutions | 4.0 | I use IBM MQ with a TELEX module for efficient message transport in the airline industry. It excels in handling high transaction volumes and has proven more reliable than our previous Oracle-based solution, though an updated GUI and AI features would be beneficial. |
I work with both IBM MQ and WebSphere Application Server. I don't want to say I'm an expert at either one of them, but I manage an infrastructure team that has both of these technologies in the infrastructure.
IBM MQ is basically used in applications that are part of the ACE product. It's also used a lot for my clients' workload that comes from B2B, and there are some MQ B2B connections that come in, so we use it for that. The two main uses are for ACE and for B2B from external clients.
The best thing about IBM MQ solution is that it's guaranteed delivery and it's fast. Those are the two big advantages.
The transactional integrity of IBM MQ in maintaining data consistency is good. We haven't had any issues in four to five years.
I'm not sure if we've utilized IBM MQ's high availability. Our MQ VMs are set up in clusters, and I think our queue managers are set up in pairs. However, I don't know if we actually use any specific high availability features of IBM MQ that are out of the box. We have it architected with high availability because we use F5 load balancers, and everything about our architecture is highly available.
I haven't personally used the management tools with IBM MQ, but we do have them, and our middleware folks leverage them. I can't really comment on them because I don't use them myself. I don't think the management tools help optimize message flows, and I'm not really aware of how they help in this.
I'm not familiar with dynamic routing for IBM MQ.
The only issue I've had with IBM MQ in the last couple of years is that whenever there is a delta in the CPU consumption of a VM that MQ is housed on, occasionally we get those VMs that power off and power on. I'm not even sure if that's a problem with Linux or a problem with IBM MQ, but that's the only issue we've had with them. Otherwise, they're completely stable.
I would rate the stability of IBM MQ probably a nine or above. It's pretty good.
IBM MQ scales just fine. We've got 12 VMs running, and it's very easy to scale.
IBM has always been good with technical support, so I would rate them a seven or an eight.
Positive
We haven't used any other message queue software before choosing IBM MQ, as it's been our messaging software.
From what I understand, the pricing or licensing of IBM MQ is a one-time charge and then a yearly license fee. We pay about 6-7K per CPU and probably about 2 to 3K per year for each CPU licensed. It's not cheap.
Everything that we have comes in as TLS, so IBM MQ's encryption doesn't really play in because everything we have that comes in from the outside world is TLS. On a scale of one to ten, I rate IBM MQ an eight.
My main use cases for IBM WebSphere Application Server are mostly web-oriented, involving Servlets, core Servlets, and Beans, which includes my personal projects.
The use cases for IBM MQ in my context involve working in tandem with WebSphere, where data is taken based on events. I notice that people are increasingly moving towards Kafka, especially here, as it performs similar functions to IBM MQ.
In my opinion, the best features of the WebSphere Application Server make it the ultimate product. There is nothing higher than WebSphere. The market has Tomcat, JBoss, and other low-level application servers, but then there is WebSphere. I prefer WebSphere particularly on AIX because it's a very powerful engine. AIX is a powerful engine, and I don't think there is any UNIX system which is better than AIX. I'm 100% confident about that. I have been working with AIX since my time as an IBMer in Europe and also here in the Royal Bank, where we have a huge forest of AIX machines, running WebSphere on many of them. I also have experience with WebSphere in Windows, which is also very good; from an administrative and development point of view, it's transparent. There is not much worry about having WebSphere on AIX or Windows.
I would assess the integration of WebSphere with third-party tools and services in terms of modernizing the IT infrastructure as very good. I was involved in an application where I integrated WebSphere with Node.js and also with Blue Prism. I executed many REST applications because at my core I am a developer. Although my title is architect, I am still a geek and a developer, and I started as a developer, so I carry that passion with me.
At the Royal Bank, I have benefited from WebSphere's high availability and clustering because the overwhelming majority of our environments are clustered with IBM HTTP Server in front. We have clusters not just with two WebSphere engines; some of them even have four or six WebSphere engines, all managed under IBM HTTP Server. Everything is federated.
From my perspective on the best features of IBM MQ, if given the choice between Kafka and IBM MQ, I would choose IBM MQ as it is by far the best. However, people opt for Kafka because it is open source and comes at no cost. This conveys my mantra that the best solution doesn't always align with being the right one, highlighting the significant difference between the best and the right.
Regarding the improvement of the WebSphere Application Server, WebSphere is at version 9.0.5.23, and last month they released another fix because they periodically put out fixes. Previously, there were very frequent version increases, but now they maintain the focus on 9.0.5 and its different releases. Oracle announced that 2030 will be the last year when Java 1.8.x will be supported, which raises questions about the future of WebSphere since it is based on Java J2EE 7 and Java SDK 1.8. I wonder what the future holds for WebSphere after 2030 since I have never seen any communication from IBM detailing this trajectory.
I have around eight years of experience with IBM products in general, as I was working with IBM Eastern Europe in Vienna before coming to Canada, and I worked with WebSphere, OS, even OS operating system, AS/400. At that time, it wasn't I5, I6; the name was AS/400. After coming to Canada in January 1998, I worked with IBM Canada in Steeles, Toronto, until 2002.
I would rate the support from IBM for their WebSphere Application Server as very good, although I have only called IBM for support two or three times in my life. Most of the time, I figure things out myself, so I would rate it a 10, with 10 being the best.
For IBM MQ support, I have only contacted support once in my life, and the experience was very good, so I can't complain. I would rate it a 10.
Positive
In my opinion, the initial setup of the WebSphere Application Server is not complex at all. I have been working with WebSphere since my time in Romania as part of IBM in Vienna, and now it is straightforward for me. While it might seem challenging at the beginning, once you get your hands on it, it becomes very straightforward.
The price of the WebSphere Application Server at the Royal Bank is influenced by our unique agreements with IBM, as it's a large establishment with numerous IBM products, including mainframes. I am not aware of the specific agreements, but it is similar to purchasing in bulk, where the pricing structure is not the same as buying a single item at a grocery store.
I still use IBM WebSphere Application Server, specifically the latest version which is 9.0.5, and I work with IBM MQ and Rational as well.
I have not had any experience with AppScan or other testing tools; I am not utilizing any tools besides Rational.
I have used management tools with IBM MQ, and I find them beneficial for optimizing message flows. I utilize these tools, but often rely on my instinct, as IBM MQ is built on Java, which I have extensive experience with.
Regarding high availability with IBM MQ, we also have IBM MQ in clusters. Having IBM MQ in a cluster is useful since the cluster setup means we have some form of high availability.
I rate this solution 10 out of 10.
The main use cases with IBM MQ recently would be more of a publish and subscribe mechanism where we have multiple subscribers for the same data which is getting published and that's where we have utilized it.
However, we are moving away from it because it has limited options for scaling up and down.
Additionally, the licensing was one of the factors since it was a licensed copy and it cost us whenever we needed to scale up and down. That's where we are moving to Apache-based services such as Kafka.
The best features of IBM MQ were stability and straightforward application functionality. It has vendor support, which was a significant advantage. In case of any production issues, we definitely get vendor support, whereas with Kafka and others, we have to rely on open community and our research.
We have utilized high availability with IBM MQ through clustering in place, which was in the cloud. It was always available for us and worked very effectively. The only issue we encountered was related to scaling up and down, which required installing additional servers from a hardware perspective.
Regarding IBM MQ's transactional integrity and maintaining data consistency, it performs effectively and I never faced any issues with respect to transactions or data loss.
The management tools come along with Universal Messaging, so explicit implementation of other tools isn't necessary.
IBM MQ comes with all the necessary encryption options and security features that we need.
The main differences between these two products, both pros and cons, in my opinion, mainly concern the scale up and scale down capabilities, which are more impacting us.
Apart from that, I don't see any issues.
I have dealt with this product, IBM MQ Universal Messaging, for close to four years now. Previously it was Software AG before being taken over by IBM.
It has vendor support, which was a significant advantage. In case of any production issues, we definitely get vendor support, whereas with Kafka and others, we have to rely on open community and our research.
IBM MQ has limitations regarding scaling options. The licensing costs associated with scaling up and down were significant, which is why we are moving to Apache-based services such as Kafka.
The main differences between these two products primarily concern the scale up and scale down capabilities, which are more impacting us. Apart from that, I don't see any issues.
I would rate their support as nine out of ten so far.
Positive
We are moving away from it because it has limited options for scaling up and down. The licensing was one of the factors since it was a licensed copy and it cost us whenever we needed to scale up and down. That's where we are moving to Apache-based services such as Kafka.
I work as an integration architect who helps integrate applications, handling data passing to SAP CRM, SaaS-based applications, databases, or Databricks applications. In integration, I am familiar with IBM MQ and Kafka. Regarding IBM MQ, it is IBM Universal Messaging tool, which is similar to what MQ is. I have rated this solution 9 out of 10.
My main use case for IBM MQ is its integration with APIs, and what we do is have a workflow system. In order to trigger the workflow, which is more of an asynchronous processing, we send a message to the workflow through IBM MQ, where the workflow listens to the IBM MQ message and then starts creating the case in the workflow system.
The best features IBM MQ offers are the topic and subscription, as well as the IBM MQ session and message rollbacks, especially for JMS integration. IBM MQ serves as the underlying foundation for our JMS messages.
IBM MQ has positively impacted my organization by enabling asynchronous processing, which means we do not need to wait for any responses from our downstream systems.
IBM MQ can be improved by having a feature where a message can be rolled back, especially if I want to go back to a particular message.
I have been using IBM MQ for around ten years, including five years and another five years.
IBM MQ is stable.
IBM MQ's scalability is very good; we have clusters in place, so we are satisfied with its performance.
Before choosing IBM MQ, I did not evaluate other options.
I would rate IBM MQ a nine out of ten; it is an excellent product, but it requires more additional features similar to Kafka. I would advise others looking into using IBM MQ to consider it as the best product for asynchronous data communication between systems.
With IBM MQ, the main use case is for applications in online banking. We use it within the banking industry. IBM MQ is a choice to create a relation between the Mainframe and distributed servers, allowing applications running on Linux or Windows to interface with Mainframe applications and enable more development of easier and open applications in a distributed environment. This means we can develop more applications that are easier to use.
I work with CICs, Workload Manager, and DB2 mainly. I have experience with IBM MQ. We mainly use clusters at the Windows level or Linux level, and in the Mainframe, we have multiple paths and different lines of connectivity transmission to assess the impact of IBM MQ's high-availability configurations on our system's resilience.
We use advanced security features such as SSH for encryption and authentication mechanisms. The security features help protect our messaging data by encrypting the transmission and ensuring authentication for connection.
The customer service or technical support from IBM is not as good as we expected; it could be better. They don't meet our standards due to the timing to get a person with knowledge.
The initial setup of IBM MQ is reasonable, just as we were expecting, and we were on time for that project.
The maintenance for IBM MQ is good to be once a year; that's the best.
We mainly use clusters at the Windows level or Linux level, and in the Mainframe, we have multiple paths and different lines of connectivity transmission to assess the impact of IBM MQ's high-availability configurations on our system's resilience.
The customer service or technical support from IBM is not as good as we expected; it could be better. I rate them a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. They don't meet our standards due to the timing to get a person with knowledge.
Positive
I don't really know the main differences between IBM MQ and other messaging queue solutions because it has been my natural choice, coming from Mainframe z/OS.
The initial setup of IBM MQ is reasonable, just as we were expecting, and we were on time for that project.
In the setup, there are mainly two persons involved, but others from different areas are also involved, making it more than just those two.
I currently work with IBM, but we are also using other vendors such as BMC and Logon for specific backup solutions from Mainframe.
My main experience is with IBM Mainframe. I do not have experience with their IBM QRadar. AWS is not our main cloud provider for IBM solutions. I am not very experienced with cloud, but we do use object storage, which is cloud or on-prem for example.
I don't remember specific examples at this moment, but if you contact me in two days, I will probably be able to refresh my memory as I'm currently focused on the capacity and performance issues of the system. I don't have thoughts on IBM MQ's pricing since I work in the support area and I'm not related to the purchasing process.
My company mainly provides services to the banking area but also sells many products, including IBM and open system solutions, such as storage. My company's name is Telcos, spelled T-A-L-C-O-S.
I am very interested in providing a review for the IBM Workload Automation based on my recent experience with it. I am still working with Workload Automation and probably have a project related to this support, but I have switched to focusing more on performance issues at the moment. I used to be more focused on Workload Automation, but now I have shifted my project to banking application performance and capacity.
I still work with IBM solutions in the other area, maintaining contact with AWS that relates to Workload Automation. I deal with banking services in general performance, mainly related to recovery, backup solutions, and CPU utilization. I have experience with IBM ProtecTIER, specifically the ProtecTIER, and not Tivoli. I do not remember experiencing Spectrum. I do not have experience with Spectrum Protect.
I have experience with backup and recovery, particularly on the Mainframe side, but not with HSM. HSM is more related to the Mainframe, and while I don't have recent experience, my focus has shifted to performance areas in z/OS, especially solutions relating to backups and disaster recovery.
We move data from Mainframe to the cloud. BMC is one of the companies I refer to, along with Logon. Logon is spelled L-O-G-O-N. Logon is based in Israel.
Overall, I would rate IBM MQ an 8 out of 10.
We use it for payment processing and to send these payments abroad in another country.
We use it for the production environment, and we consider it stable enough, which is why we continue to use this product.
The biggest advantage is that it's a reliable enough product which we use, and it's a highly documented product. We can learn it slowly, so we have experienced users and experienced staff to use this product.
We suppose it's secure because we use secure tools within the frame of this product, such as TLS 1.3 and so on. Its scalability is enough for our purposes, and that's all we can say about it.
Currently, we have some disadvantages; it's a bit difficult to use IBM ID to access support from the IBM site. To get nice support from IBM, we need to use IBM ID, and it's a bit complicated to integrate it with IBM support.
Support can be better because sometimes we need explanations for some behaviors of the product, and it's not easy to reach the proper person in IBM support.
They could add some new features into IBM MQ to make it better. A graphical user interface in addition to MQ Explorer could be useful, but we are satisfied with MQ Explorer as well.
We have been using it in general for about 10 years.
We have some experience with installations, and it's difficult. We need to state that it requires some experience and knowledge. We have required experience, having used this product about 10 years.
Its scalability is enough for our purposes, and that's all we can say about it.
Support can be better because sometimes we need explanations for some behaviors of the product, and it's not easy to reach the proper person in IBM support.
Positive
I cannot compare with other products, and I cannot give exact answers regarding whether it's expensive or cheap, as I don't know the costs of other products in this group. For us, we pay for it, and we rely on this product, and it's okay.
It's possible to get some training, but the cost of this learning is expensive. It costs some money, but we have required experience and knowledge because we have been using it for about 10 years.
It's possible to get some training, but the cost of this learning is expensive. It costs some money, but we have required experience and knowledge because we have been using it for about 10 years.
I cannot compare with other products, and I cannot give exact answers regarding whether it's expensive or cheap, as I don't know the costs of other products in this group. For us, we pay for it, and we rely on this product, and it's okay.
I'm just a user, representing Raiffeisen Bank, and it's clear.
We use WebSphere MQ, which includes some tools such as ActiveMQ, IBM MQ, and VMware.
Today, we don't use AI for our purposes, but if we find any useful AI features for this product, we might use them later because we can't evaluate their reliability for our needs right now.
On a scale of 1-10, I rate IBM MQ a nine.
The reason for this rating is due to the turnaround time, which is an important factor. IBM follows a practice of raising a ticket and has specified turnaround times to get back to us. Though usually, if it is high priority or top priority, they turn around faster, even for medium or low priority issues, their turnaround time is not as good to complete our project. We cannot hold on to the project for a long time just to wait for IBM to fix the issues. Our project will have its own timelines, so we expect turnaround times for medium and low priority incidents or tickets to be better than what IBM is currently offering.
Neutral
I would recommend IBM MQ to other people.
I do not wish to disclose my organization's name or email because this does not represent the organization's viewpoint officially.
I rate IBM MQ overall as a seven on a scale from 1 to 10, when 1 is the worst solution, and 10 is the best solution.
Positive
Primarily used for IBM MQ data transfers.
As a user of IBM MQ, I use it for data transfers, configuring the queues and similar tasks. I do not work with it beyond those functions.
It is primarily used for data transfers within the applications. That encompasses the most critical features and functionality for me.
The biggest advantage of IBM MQ is its reliability.
IBM MQ is reliable and includes important security aspects.
IBM MQ is still in a premature state. It is in a research phase, so it is very early to make specific suggestions about improvements.
The stability of IBM MQ rates at eight or nine out of ten.
The scalability of IBM MQ rates at eight out of ten.
Scalability and sustainability could be examples for IBM MQ.
Any product of this nature should be scalable and sustainable. It depends on how the product evolves, how it has been implemented in the organization, and how we manage it.
I found the information about IBM MQ on the website to be good.
I am just a user of IBM MQ conducting research and reviewing it.
Being a user of IBM MQ, I do not have detailed knowledge about the specifics. The support team handles those aspects.
We are informed about issues with IBM MQ periodically. However, we do not necessarily receive complete information about why certain things were not working, as it is outside of my purview.
From a sustainability perspective, there might be room for consideration regarding IBM MQ. Otherwise, it performs well.
My final rating for IBM MQ is nine out of ten points, where ten is the best.
Positive
