We performed a comparison between Aurea CX Messenger and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, TIBCO, Aurea and others in Business Activity Monitoring."SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"It offers better reliability and monitoring compared to other tools."
"The solution is very stable."
"The thing that I like about MQ most is its reliability. It's one of those types of products that just works. You don't have to tinker around with it too much."
"The solution allows one to easily configure an IBM MQQueueManager."
"The most valuable feature is the interaction within the system."
"RabbitMQ and Kafka require more steps for setup than IBM MQ. Installation of the IBM product is very simple."
"Setting up MQ is easy. We had a "grow as you go" implementation strategy. We started with a single channel and progressed to multiple queues and channels depending on the systems and integrations with other systems. It was a gradual deployment and expansion as we grew the services interacting with the core system using MQ."
"The solution is fast with end data compared to other messaging tools."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"The integration capabilities could be even easier."
"With IBM products, there's less marketing. If they do more demos and more seminars on their products, it will be very useful. On a given day. I get seminar invites for many vendors and products, but for IBM, I may get an invite once or twice a year."
"It could always be more stable and secure."
"I have used the support from IBM MQ. There is some room for improvement."
"IBM MQ is not very user-friendly."
"It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."
"IBM HQ's scalability isn't the best."
"I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially."
Aurea CX Messenger is ranked 3rd in Business Activity Monitoring with 7 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 158 reviews. Aurea CX Messenger is rated 9.0, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Aurea CX Messenger writes "Lightweight and efficient solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Reliable and stable solution that includes support from the IBM technical team". Aurea CX Messenger is most compared with Mule ESB, TIBCO Enterprise Message Service and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Amazon SQS.
See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors, best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) vendors, and best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Business Activity Monitoring 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.
