We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, and Oracle Service Bus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, MuleSoft, Software AG and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."The message queue connectors are the most valuable feature. They have built-in connectors for most of the systems, like SAP and Oracle Database."
"One of the most valuable features is how seamless and easy to use this solution is. This is a fantastic solution and a very measured product."
"I have found IBM Integration Bus is very useful because it can integrate multiple backend applications."
"The product helps efficiently work with different connectors from different back-end systems."
"The solution offers good performance and is stable."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"I really like SQL integration nodes, HTTP nodes, event handling, event monitoring, the performance of the solution."
"Having the solution come from IBM you know you are receiving a product of quality in components and in the services, it is very good."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"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."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"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."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The solution has good integration."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"We've been pleased with the level of technical support."
"Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters."
"I like the ease of deployment and the ease of implementation."
"It was very good at supporting high transactions, up to 300 transactions per second."
"The solution is quite stable overall. We haven't witnessed any performance issues so far."
"There are always continuous improvements that are happening."
"Service Bus is good at routing the transformation."
"What I like most about Oracle Service Bus is that you can use it for many integrations. For example, you can use it for on-premises to on-premises integrations, on-premises to cloud integrations, and cloud to on-premises integrations."
"This solution would benefit from improvements to the configuration interface."
"IBM Integration Bus can improve JSON Schema validations. We don't have any kind of nodes that can support that kind of validation. If we want to containerize it by means of the docker's containers in the clouds, we are not able to manage it very well."
"IBM Integration Bus isn't particularly user-friendly and has a big learning curve."
"The version of the technology and current knowledge is a bit outdated."
"One drawback that I have found is that there are issues with using the Java connector."
"The tracing and debugging features are not up to date with more modern technology available."
"The solution is too expensive for smaller companies."
"The price could be better. It would also be better if they simplified the code."
"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."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The pricing of the product could be better. It's a bit high."
"It's very complex and hard to learn. There's a steep learning curve."
"There are issues, especially if you want to create some compensation in your service bin."
"There are some loopholes in service and support."
"We have faced a problem with the heap memory side, but that is stable now."
"The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production."
"Security needs to be more integrated."
"It needs to support more adapters, because the integration points keep changing and new things keep coming up. It also needs to be more scalable."
