Aurea CX Messenger vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker comparison

Aurea and IBM are both solutions in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category. Aurea is ranked #14, while IBM is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.0. Aurea holds a 2.1% mindshare in E, compared to IBM’s 4.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Aurea users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 84% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Aurea CX Messenger

Read 7 Aurea CX Messenger reviews

956 Views
258 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Read 13 IBM WebSphere Message Broker reviews

971 Views
689 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

Aurea CX Messenger

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Aurea CX Messenger are message-oriented middleware products. Aurea CX Messenger seems to offer greater value due to its robust feature set.

Features: IBM WebSphere Message Broker provides versatile connectivity, robust transformation capabilities, and support for multiple protocols. It is valuable in integration and mapping, easy setup and deployment, and reliable messaging queues. Aurea CX Messenger is reliable under high transaction loads, provides seamless message flow, and incorporates advanced security features. It supports XSLT, JavaScript, and allows custom Java services.

Room for Improvement: IBM WebSphere Message Broker could enhance its graphical user interface, simplify its integration with certain back-end systems, and streamline the setup process. Aurea CX Messenger would benefit from expanded messaging protocols, improved transaction handling for larger messages, and more comprehensive documentation for developers.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Aurea CX Messenger offers simplified deployment with efficient customer service, using streamlined processes that facilitate setup. IBM WebSphere's deployment might be more complex, yet it is backed by a wide range of service options, offering extensive customer support for intricate setups.

Pricing and ROI: IBM WebSphere Message Broker typically has a higher setup cost but promises substantial ROI through its integration proficiency and adaptability. Aurea CX Messenger presents a lower initial cost with ROI derived from performance and efficiency, making it a cost-effective choice for high transaction operations.

To learn more, read our detailed Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,114 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Aurea CX Messenger

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

14th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business Activity Monitoring (4th), Message Queue (MQ) Software (12th), SOA Governance (6th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (8th)

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

9th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Infrastructure (17th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 2.1%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is 4.8%, up from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
IBM WebSphere Message Broker	4.8%
Aurea CX Messenger	2.1%
Other	93.1%

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Featured Reviews

Radhey Rajput

Sr. IT Analyst at NCR Corporation

Lightweight and efficient solution

It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…

Read full review

BrajendraKumar

Technical Architect at HCL Technologies

Offers large-sized business information processing with a time-saving setup and impressive stability

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"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."

"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."

"The solution offers excellent stability."

"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."

"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 Messenger Broker is a really good feature."

"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."

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

"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."

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

"Straightforward development and deployment."

"IBM WebSphere Message Broker is one of the best middleware solutions"

"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."

"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker pros

Cons

"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."

"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."

"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"

"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."

"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."

"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."

"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."

"As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordingly."

"The product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor"

"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."

"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"

"The pricing is not so high."

"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."

"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."

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

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

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

"The solution is expensive."

"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"

"The solution is expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Insurance Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Media Company

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

11%

Insurance Company

Transportation Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	5

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Large Enterprise	10

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?

IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM WebSphere Message Broker?

There could be greater flexibility and agility in service creation for the product. As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordi...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?

We use the product for exposing services at the application level, integrating with various architectures like WebSphere, and handling static service creation.

See all answers

Comparisons

Oracle SOA Suite vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 13% of the time

TIBCO eFTL vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 12% of the time

ActiveMQ vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 12% of the time

PubSub+ Platform vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 8% of the time

IBM MQ vs Aurea CX Messenger

Compared 8% of the time

More Aurea CX Messenger Competitors

IBM Integration Bus vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 24% of the time

webMethods.io vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 14% of the time

Mule ESB vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 12% of the time

IIS vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 10% of the time

IBM BPM vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 7% of the time

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Business Activity Monitoring

December 2025

Download Aurea CX Messenger product report

Buyer's Guide

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

January 2026

Download IBM WebSphere Message Broker product report

Also Known As

CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ

WebSphere Message Broker

Overview

CX Messenger lets your technology keep pace with your business. Aurea’s industry leading Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) lets you adapt and change your infrastructure with plug-and-play speed and ease.

Aurea

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.

IBM

Sample Customers

Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage

WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin Tire

Buyer's Guide

Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker

December 2025

Free Report: Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Find out what your peers are saying about Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker report.

See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.

We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.