We performed a comparison between Fiorano ESB and IBM WebSphere Message Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The platform's most valuable feature is data transformation."
"One of the most valuable features is the scalability. Whenever it's required, we can add more servers and scale. We can actually use specific servers for specific stuff. Unlike in other solutions, now we can implement one server purely dedicated to core-banking-related API. This is very important when it comes to the PCI DSS certification."
"The ability to compliment out-of-the-box integration components with small custom code."
"The solution has good integration."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Fiorano ESB's logging feature and data availability need improvement."
"Fiorano ESB could be improved by becoming more user-friendly. Most of the pages and generated reports on API usage are already there, but they could be more user-friendly. There could be more selections added to generate reports. Overall, though, Fiorano suits all our needs and has good functionality."
"Error logging is not very user-friendly. It requires the error logging to be configured in many different places."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"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."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
Fiorano ESB is ranked 10th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 5 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews. Fiorano ESB is rated 9.0, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Fiorano ESB writes "Scalable and easy to maintain". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". Fiorano ESB is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus and Oracle Service Bus, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM. See our Fiorano ESB 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.
