We performed a comparison between Amazon MQ and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations."
"The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution."
"IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications."
"The reliability of the queuing is the most valuable feature."
"This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
"IBM HQ's stability is great - we send six million messages a day, and we're very satisfied with HQ's ability to handle that volume."
"Integrates between distributed systems: For example, it can help integrate processing between mainframe, client-server, web-based applications by integrating the messages, supporting Service Oriented Architecture."
"Reliable integration between MQ servers is the most valuable feature."
"The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day."
"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"Amazon MQ is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises. It's open-source software, which means it's cheaper than its competitors."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially."
"The integration capabilities could be even easier."
"There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily."
"I'm not sure that current version has event-driven mechanism requests that people go for. I would like the latest version to come with both type of event mechanisms: an email server and a POP server. If that is not there, then that would be a great addition."
"IBM MQ could improve by adding more protocols or APIs for a standard application, such as MuleSoft."
"At a recent conference, I went to a presentation that had the latest version and it has amazing stuff that's coming out. So, I am excited to use those, specifically surrounding the web console and the fact that it's API integrated."
"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."
"There are many complications with IBM MQ servers."
Amazon MQ is ranked 9th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. Amazon MQ is rated 8.4, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon MQ writes "Provides you with a URL where you can either send or retrieve messages". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Reliable and stable solution that includes support from the IBM technical team". Amazon MQ is most compared with Amazon SQS, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and EMQX, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Software AG Universal Messaging. See our Amazon MQ vs. IBM MQ report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
