We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, IBM, Amazon and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software."This solution has improved and influenced the communication between different applications, then standardized that communication."
"There are a lot of extensible options for security, i.e., various things you can do. It's pretty easy to navigate."
"Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications."
"Offers good performance as well as scalability and stability."
"Integrates between distributed systems: For example, it can help integrate processing between mainframe, client-server, web-based applications by integrating the messages, supporting Service Oriented Architecture."
"The solution is very stable."
"It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters."
"The clusterization which results in persistence is the most valuable feature."
"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."
"We would like to see the IBM technical support team extend their hand to providing support for other cloud vendors like Azure, Google Cloud, and AWS"
"The solution requires a lot of work to implement and maintain."
"I would like less updates from IBM MQ."
"MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ."
"The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM)."
"The product does not allow users to access data from API or external networks since it can only be used in a closed network, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box."
"Customer support response times could be improved."
"JBoss could add more automation."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 156 reviews while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is ranked 12th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Reliable and stable solution that includes support from the IBM technical team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS writes "It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia". IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Amazon SQS and Red Hat AMQ, whereas Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is most compared with Apache Kafka.
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.