We compared IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
IBM MQ is praised for its reliability, scalability, security, and seamless integration capabilities, with positive feedback on customer service, setup expenses, and licensing. On the other hand, VMware RabbitMQ is commended for its message queueing abilities, integration, scalability, and support. Areas for enhancement in IBM MQ include improvements in certain aspects, while VMware RabbitMQ users seek better documentation, UI, stability, performance, error handling, message routing, and clustering support.
Features: IBM MQ is valued for its reliability, scalability, security, and ease of integration. Users appreciate its ability to handle high volumes of messages without loss or delay and its robust encryption protocols. It seamlessly connects with different applications and platforms. On the other hand, VMware RabbitMQ excels in message queueing capabilities, seamless integration, scalability, and community support.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for IBM MQ received positive remarks, with users finding it reasonable and cost-effective. The setup costs were considered manageable, allowing swift implementation. In comparison, users expressed satisfaction with the affordable setup cost of VMware RabbitMQ and its flexible licensing options., IBM MQ users have praised its efficiency, communication integration, and streamlined workflows. The product is reliable, scalable, and easy to use, resulting in cost savings and increased productivity. On the other hand, users of VMware RabbitMQ have reported increased efficiency, seamless integration with existing infrastructure, and reduced downtime. The platform is praised for its scalability, reliability, extensive documentation, and strong community support.
Room for Improvement: IBM MQ product has received user feedback regarding areas that require enhancement, whereas VMware RabbitMQ has received feedback on areas including documentation, user interface, stability, performance, error handling, message routing, and support for clustering and scaling.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for IBM MQ indicate that users mentioned different timeframes for establishing new tech solutions, with deployment taking three months and setup ranging from one week to one week. The reviews for VMware RabbitMQ also mention varying durations, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others mentioned a week for both. It is important to carefully evaluate the context in which these terms are used to determine if they refer to the same period or should be considered separately., IBM MQ's customer service is highly regarded for its promptness, effectiveness, and level of expertise. Users describe the support team as helpful, courteous, and professional. In comparison, VMware RabbitMQ's customer service is praised for its responsiveness, reliability, and efficient problem-solving abilities.
The summary above is based on 27 interviews we conducted recently with IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7."
"IBM is still adding some features and coding some other systems on the security end. However, it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes."
"The usability of the solution is very good."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"I have found that the solution scales well."
"The solution is stable."
"I like the architecture it provides seamlessly for assured delivery."
"Offers good performance as well as scalability and stability."
"Large amounts of data can be moved pretty fast using the solution."
"The most valuable feature is asynchronous calls, which are easy to configure."
"Simple and straightforward admin portals: Made it easy for users and worked out excellently for our requirements"
"Reliability for the messages is key. RabbitMQ ensures your messages are safe. They are not deleted and stuff."
"It can be configured to be a very fast message broker. I like the stability, the built-in admin tools and plugin architecture."
"The solution can scale."
"I like the high throughput of 20K messages/sec, and that it supports multiple protocols."
"It is easy to use. The addition of more queues and more services can be managed very easily."
"I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially."
"I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution."
"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 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."
"Customer support response times could be improved."
"At a recent conference, I went to a presentation that had the latest version and it has amazing stuff that's coming out. So, I am excited to use those, specifically surrounding the web console and the fact that it's API integrated."
"The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset."
"We are looking at the latest version, and we hope that resilience, high availability, and monitoring will be improved. It can have some more improvements in the heterogeneous messaging feature. The current solution is on-premises, so good integration with public cloud messaging solutions would be useful."
"Their implementation is quite tricky. It's not that easy to implement RabbitMQ as a cluster."
"The user interface could be improved."
"RabbitMQ is clearly better supported on Linux than it is on Windows. There are idiosyncrasies in the Windows version that are not there on Linux."
"The product has to improve the crisis management, especially in memory issues."
"The debugging capabilities and testing flexibilities need to be improved."
"There are some security concerns that have been raised with this product."
"I’d like this dashboard to use web sockets, so it would actually be in real time. It would slightly increase debugging, etc."
"When you have complex tasks, RabbitMQ is hard to use."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while VMware RabbitMQ is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 40 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while VMware RabbitMQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware RabbitMQ writes "Reliable queueing functionality and versatile tool that can be used with any programming languages ". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, Red Hat AMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Amazon SQS, whereas VMware RabbitMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, Anypoint MQ, ActiveMQ, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker. See our IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ report.
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.
