We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Redis based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
"This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
"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."
"Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."
"All the features are valuable."
"The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing."
"Reliability is the most valuable feature. MQ is used to support critical business applications."
"The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
"Redis is a simple, powerful, and fast solution."
"The product offers fast access to my database."
"It makes operations more efficient. The information processing is very fast, and very responsive. It's all about the technology."
"The most valuable features of Redis are its ease of use and speed. It does not have access to the disc and it is fast."
"The in-memory data makes it fast."
"The online interface is very fast and easy to use."
"The solution's technical support team is good...The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions."
"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."
"I would like the ability to connect with some of the more recent offerings, such as API Connect; being able to publish our MQ endpoints, the queues, the messaging infrastructure as IT assets."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"More documentation would be good because some features are not deeply implemented."
"IBM MQ could streamline its complexity to be more like Kafka without the channel complexities of clusters, making it more straightforward."
"There are many complications with IBM MQ servers."
"I would prefer it if there was more information available about Redis. That would make it easier for new beginners. Currently, there is a lack of resources."
"The development of clusters could improve. Additionally, it would be helpful if it was integrated with Amazon AWS or Google Cloud."
"The only thing is the lack of a GUI application. There was a time when we needed to resolve an issue in production. If we had a GUI, it would have been easier."
"There is a lack of documentation on the scalability of the solution."
"In future releases, I would like Redis to provide its users with an option like schema validation. Currently, the solution lacks to offer such functionality."
"The initial setup took some time as our technical team needed to familiarize themselves with Redis."
"Sometimes, we use Redis as a cluster, and the clusters can sometimes suffer some issues and bring some downtime to your application."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Redis is ranked 7th in Database as a Service with 7 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Redis is rated 8.8. 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 Redis writes "A solution that can benefit both user and customer-facing applications while effectively preventing potential lag in the user-facing application". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Amazon EventBridge, whereas Redis is most compared with Google Cloud Memorystore, Amazon SQS, ActiveMQ, Chroma and Qdrant. See our IBM MQ vs. Redis 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.