Azul Zulu vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker comparison

"We achieved specific outcomes from using Azul Zulu by reducing our Java licensing and support costs by approximately 70% when compared to our previous Oracle contract."

"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."

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

"It's reliable for our day-to-day operations, ensuring fast and secure data integration across different systems."

"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."

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

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

"Straightforward development and deployment."

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

"Improvements for Azul Zulu could include more automated tools for unused code visibility integrated directly into the standard portal to help further optimize our cloud footprints."

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

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

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

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

"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."

"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."

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

"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

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

"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."

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