"It is useful for exchanging information between applications."
"I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use."
"The solution can scale well."
"IBM MQ is robust compared to other products in the market. It also gives you support from the IBM team."
"The solution is stable."
"I have found that the solution scales well."
"The solution is very stable."
"The usability of the solution is very good."
"When we went to add another installation in our private cloud, it was easy. We received support from Solace and the install was seamless with no issues."
"We've built a lot of products into it and it's been quite easy to feed market data onto the systems and put entitlements and controls around that. That was a big win for us when we were consolidating our platforms down. Trying to have one event bus, one messaging bus, for the whole globe, and consolidate everything over time, has been key for us. We've been able to do that through one API, even if it's across the different languages."
"As of now, the most valuable aspects are the topic-based subscription and the fanout exchange that we are using."
"When it comes to granularity, you can literally do anything regarding how the filtering works."
"The way we can replicate information and send it to several subscribers is most valuable. It can be used for any kind of business where you've got multiple users who need information. Any company, such as LinkedIn, with a huge number of subscribers and any business, such as publishing, supermarket, airline, or shipping can use it."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
"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 main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now."
"There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily."
"The licensing fees should be more cost-effective so that we can better pitch the product to our clients. With the pricing as it is, they tend to move away from IBM products."
"IBM MQ's pricing is higher than its competitors'."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products."
"If you create one event in the past, you cannot resend it."
"It could be cheaper. It could also have easier usage. It is a brilliant product, but it is quite complex to use."
"We've pointed out some things with the DMR piece, the event mesh, in edge cases where we could see a problem. Something like 99 percent of users wouldn't ever see this problem, but it has to do with if you get multiple bad clients sending data over a WAN, for example. That could then impact other clients."
"We have requested to be able to get into the payload to do dynamic topic hierarchy building. A current workaround is using the message's header, where the business data can be put into this header and be used for a dynamic topic lookup. I want to see this in action when there are a couple of hundred cases live. E.g., how does it perform? From an administration perspective, is the ease of use there?"
IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 26 reviews while PubSub+ Event Broker is ranked 6th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 4 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.0, while PubSub+ Event Broker is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Reliable and stable software with good integration but the file transfer process needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PubSub+ Event Broker writes "We can add an application or users in the middle of the day, with no disruption to anyone". IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ, Anypoint MQ and Amazon SQS, whereas PubSub+ Event Broker is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ, Confluent and Amazon EventBridge. See our IBM MQ vs. PubSub+ Event Broker report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors and best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) 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.
