We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and IBM WebSphere Message Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Some of the features that I like the most are team management and process performance. They are both very useful and very powerful with regard to the workflow."
"The solution has helped us automate business processes."
"IBM BPM is equipped with all the functionalities which are needed for building BPM enterprise-level applications."
"The performance is fine."
"Its workflow and integration with SAP are the most valuable features. It is also a stable solution."
"The solution is stable."
"IBM BPM is both scalable and stable."
"The most valuable features are the integration capabilities - BPM can connect with almost any legacy or advanced system."
"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."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"IBM BPM's price could be improved."
"There needs to be better documentation for IBM BPM in a central place. There is not any standard documentation for each component available and has been a barrier for developers."
"I believe that if the license were cheaper, it would have a greater impact."
"The price and the overall installation process could be improved."
"We have had to use Mule as an alternative integration tool because it is more flexible than IBM BPM."
"The front end is not customised for a good user experience."
"They don't have a mechanism to achieve processes, data sources, and data."
"The pricing is a little bit high. It's gone up in cost."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"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."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
IBM BPM is ranked 1st in Application Infrastructure with 27 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 7th in Application Infrastructure with 5 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "A very stable and powerful tool for handling lots of concurrent users, but it is expensive, and the Eclipse-based tool has performance issues when you have a lot of developers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda Platform, IBM Business Automation Workflow, Pega BPM, Appian and Apache Airflow, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IIS. See our IBM BPM vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.
