No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Avada Software Infrared360 vs IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

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

Avada Software Infrared360
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
80th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (9th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (12th), Server Monitoring (37th)
IBM Tivoli Composite Applic...
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
62nd
Average Rating
6.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Avada Software Infrared360 is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager0.6%
Avada Software Infrared3600.4%
Other99.0%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

WK
ICT Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems
* We now have the possibility of getting a central perspective on all tenants. * We have defined access roles for developers. Therefore, they can 'read in' their queues on the development and testing stages. With special roles, they may also write. This improves our development and testing cycle. * For operative systems, we have restricted the access. Still, selected people can react if something is happening in the various BOQs.
CC
Sales manager at Prodeo Innovation
Integrates well with IBM technologies, but it's outdated and lacks essential features
Implementing synthetic monitoring for our Internet banking site has been challenging. The installation process is difficult, requiring continuous support and specialist expertise due to our limited knowledge of managing it effectively. I have concerns about the complexity of the tool and the challenges in managing it effectively. The support provided is not satisfactory, and the specialists available lack sufficient training and expertise in using the tool.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"Role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"The ability for development teams to have access to their MQ queues has freed us up as administrators to do things other than chase down an application’s message for research purposes."
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"IR360 does not require a large team to manage our entire middleware estate and allows the leveraging of a logical model of reuse."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"Administration, Monitoring, and Delegation are the most valuable features of the solution."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"The solution is very stable. We never had any issues with stability."
"IBM's main value lies in its integration with its own technologies, which can be seen as a benefit in environments where IBM products are extensively used."
"The solution is very stable, and we never had any issues with stability."
 

Cons

"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"We definitely need a better overview in terms of a dashboard giving us insights."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic."
"The user interface was not good."
"The installation process is difficult, requiring continuous support and specialist expertise due to our limited knowledge of managing it effectively."
"The user interface was not good."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Start small, then increase licensing later as per your demand."
"Avada Software's licensing metric is very good because the license fees are based on the number of connections (which have not increased for us very much over the years) rather than the CPU processing power (which increases significantly whenever our hardware is upgraded) or the number of users (which has increased for us a lot since our original purchase)."
"Our internal budget calculation model incorporates the pricing per endpoint for any new projects. However, as our footprint for distributed queue managers shrinks as part of our shared middleware hub deployment, the initial licensing and support costs have been reduced over the last five years."
"Because the licensing is at the QMGR level, you need to have at least a small cushion of licenses for occasional enterprise needs."
"I would rate the pricing a nine to ten. It is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Construction Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Printing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Government
12%
Construction Company
11%
Healthcare Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise5
No data available
 

Also Known As

Infrared360
Tivoli Composite Application Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

USBank, Southwest Airlines, Visiting Nurse Services of New York, Aon Hewitt, Parker Hannifin,  Cantonal Bank of Zurich (ZKB), Hagemeyer NA, and many others
Michelin Tire Corp
Find out what your peers are saying about Avada Software Infrared360 vs. IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.