"I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"Reliable messaging and throughput are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"The most valuable feature is the interaction within the system."
"Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."
"I think the whole product is useful. Their database and all is very good, and the product is fine. The fact that it ensures message delivery is probably the most important thing. I also like that you're able to trace and track everything. If it doesn't arrive at the destination, it will go back to the queue, and no message will be lost."
"What is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up."
"The solution is very easy to work with."
"The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing."
"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"The initial setup is difficult. Creating your own cluster is difficult. Working with cluster repositories is difficult. Issue management with IBM MQ is difficult."
"In terms of volume, it is not able to handle a huge volume. We also have limitations of queues related to IBM MQ. We often need to handle a very big volume, but currently we do have limitations. If those kinds of limitations could be relaxed, it would help us to work better."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"The main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
"They could integrate monitoring into the solution, a bit more than they do now. Currently, they have opened the REST API so you can get statistic and accounting information and details from MQ and build your own monitoring, if you want. IBM can improve the solution in this direction."
Earn 20 points
IBM Event Streams is ranked 10th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 45 reviews. IBM Event Streams is rated 9.0, while IBM MQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Event Streams writes "Easy to use, stable, has a good interface, and the security is good". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "We don't lose messages in transit and we can store messages and forward them when required". IBM Event Streams is most compared with Apache Kafka and Red Hat AMQ, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Real-Time Innovations DDS.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software 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.
