Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Integration Bus vs JBoss ESB comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Integration Bus
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
70
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
JBoss ESB
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of IBM Integration Bus is 21.0%, down from 22.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of JBoss ESB is 3.3%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM Integration Bus21.0%
JBoss ESB3.3%
Other75.7%
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

Ashraf Siddiqui - PeerSpot reviewer
Helpful for complex integrations because it has tools and functionality to integrate with other systems
Everything needs to be improved. As far as integration and the cloud are concerned, things are moving to the cloud side. When you use Kubernetes and similar technologies, IBM Integration Bus doesn't greatly facilitate these environments. Maybe I don't know enough about that, but I feel that when it comes to the DevOps environment, the tool needs to be deployed on production in a way that's just like pods. Cloud integration needs to be more facilitated with the DevOps environment. This IBM technology needs to adapt because in the recent world, in the real world, we see that everything is just a cloud pod. Whenever you need to scale anything, you just put some cloud and pod and improve it, make any server and deploy it. But in IBM Integration Bus, there is a problem because we can't do this as easily. In short, IBM needs to more emphasize or more integrate with the cloud environments as well, similar to DevOps. There are limitations in IBM Integration Bus when it comes to DevOps.
AU
Efficient orchestration and security features improve business processes effortlessly
JBoss ESB should focus on startup and performance as EAP is heavier than lightweight Java frameworks, which impacts microservices and cloud environments. Improvements should include faster start times and reduced memory footprints. Better cold-start performance in containers should be emphasized. Cloud-native features must be enhanced since many enterprises are shifting to Kubernetes and OpenShift, making EAP more cloud-friendly. This could include providing smaller container images, native auto-scaling support, and improved integration with cloud configuration services. Enhancing the developer experience is crucial; while the current configuration is powerful, it can be complex for newcomers. As an experienced user, I navigate it easily, but newcomers struggle due to heavy reliance on XML configuration. Transitioning to a JSON-based configuration or YAML format would be beneficial, and simplifications in clustering setup for local testing would greatly assist users.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We've been using IBM Integration Bus for seven years to create a service-oriented architecture in our bank and implement SOAR infrastructure using this tool. It helps us with internal services for core banking and different digital channels. We also use it to expose our services to other banks and companies and consume services from outside our bank using proxy servers."
"From a performance point of view, it's very good and it doesn't need very much in terms of CPU resources."
"The product is a user-customized tool so that you can adjust it to your specific needs pretty well with little trouble."
"Facilitates communication between parties and legacy systems."
"The solution has enhanced data processing capabilities by allowing efficient data integration and transformation."
"The integration with other tools is excellent. It integrates well with batch issues."
"We can have multiple endpoints, and we can integrate different applications from different platforms. In a large-scale enterprise setup, it becomes so easy to establish communication between applications. You can connect an application to other applications, other legacy applications, and databases. You can also connect with those applications that are in the cloud. You can connect with other well-known applications, such as Salesforce, SAP, and Workday, by using IBM Integration Bus."
"The Cloud Pak for Integration is a useful feature."
"The solution is very easy to use. I can download the trial version and just give it a go."
 

Cons

"There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"Sometimes migration takes too long."
"It provides all the features that are required for day-to-day work. So far, I haven't seen any major issues that impact our work. I have been told that IBM App Connect Enterprise, which is the next version of IIB, is really good. It is better than IIB, and it gives you more coverage in terms of application integration."
"Regarding the pricing setup cost and licensing for IBM Integration Bus, I believe it is expensive. The IBM tool is now expensive because they moved to the cloud."
"I can't say that there is any improvement I’m looking for. I’m new and haven’t connected with all features. For all drawbacks that were in the old version, I think they have been solved. The scalability needs improvement."
"I think security should be more simplified."
"This solution would benefit from improvements to the configuration interface."
"JBoss ESB should focus on startup and performance as EAP is heavier than lightweight Java frameworks, which impacts microservices and cloud environments."
"The EPA, from what I understand, lacks a lot of features and it doesn't really know how to interface with legacy systems or how to develop APIs for legacy systems."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of this product could be lower."
"As customers, we always try to buy things as cheaply as possible. But the price for the IBM Integration Bus is fine. When we compare it to competitors, it's pretty much the same. However, there are a lot of open-source integration platforms coming to the market as well. So overall, the price is fine as far as licensed products are concerned."
"The price of the IBM Integration Bus is expensive. If you compare the price to the cloud version you can purchase what you need but the on-premise version price is flat."
"IBM Integration Bus is expensive."
"The pricing of the solution is high."
"Pricing is on par with its competition."
"IBM Integration Bus is expensive."
"IBM Integration Bus solution is expensive and this is one of the reasons we are looking for an alternative, such as MuleSoft."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise17
Large Enterprise47
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Migration from IBM Integration Bus to Mulesoft ESB for a large enterprise tech services company
I was previously part of the Oracle SOA/OSB development team. In my current capacity I architected solutions using MuleSoft Anypoint Platform on cloud / on-premises and hybrid modes and on PCE/RTF ...
IBM Integration Bus vs Mule ESB - which to choose?
Our team ran a comparison of IBM’s Integration Bus vs. Mule ESB in order to determine what sort of ESB software was the best fit for our organization. Ultimately we decided to choose IBM Integratio...
What do you like most about IBM Integration Bus?
The message queue, like, message queue connectors. Then they have a built in connectors for most of the systems, like SAP, oracle database, and this Civil connector is there. Of course, we have thi...
What needs improvement with JBoss ESB?
JBoss ESB should focus on startup and performance as EAP is heavier than lightweight Java frameworks, which impacts microservices and cloud environments. Improvements should include faster start ti...
What advice do you have for others considering JBoss ESB?
I am currently using JBoss ESB as an end user. I chose JBoss ESB because it is excellent for open source Java, Java EE, and Jakarta applications. Initially developed by JBoss, it was later acquired...
What is your primary use case for JBoss ESB?
I used JBoss ESB for banking API and banking software. We created our own modules since banking APIs and banking applications require extensive security measures. Since banks handle sensitive finan...
 

Also Known As

IBM WebSphere ESB
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Salesbox, €sterreichische Bundesbahnen (€BB), Road Buddy, Swiss Federal Railways, Electricity Supply Board, The Hartree Centre, ESB Networks
Rancore, Sprint, ResMed, Brazil's Ministry of Health, ING Services Polska
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Integration Bus vs. JBoss ESB and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.