No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM MQ vs TIBCO FTL 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 MQ
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
174
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (1st), Message Queue (MQ) Software (1st)
TIBCO FTL
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
7th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) category, the mindshare of IBM MQ is 16.3%, down from 28.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TIBCO FTL is 5.6%, down from 7.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM MQ16.3%
TIBCO FTL5.6%
Other78.1%
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
 

Featured Reviews

David Pizinger - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise Technical Leader at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Has faced unexpected VM restarts but continues to deliver messages reliably
I'm not sure if we've utilized IBM MQ's high availability. Our MQ VMs are set up in clusters, and I think our queue managers are set up in pairs. However, I don't know if we actually use any specific high availability features of IBM MQ that are out of the box. We have it architected with high availability because we use F5 load balancers, and everything about our architecture is highly available. I haven't personally used the management tools with IBM MQ, but we do have them, and our middleware folks leverage them. I can't really comment on them because I don't use them myself. I don't think the management tools help optimize message flows, and I'm not really aware of how they help in this. I'm not familiar with dynamic routing for IBM MQ.
reviewer963342 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Architect
Static and dynamic TCP have been the most useful
It's an ESB for both server-side as well as with eFTL, we are exposing messages to clients over web/mobile From the current direct socket architecture, we moved to an FTL based messaging layer which allowed us to not worry about individual functions but work on a single message/framework.…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use it for all our integration cases, including the integration of core applications within our company and external solutions from our partners."
"There are some parts of the business side that couldn't be done without it; it's an integral part."
"From the time I joined this company I have been working with IBM MQ and until now I haven't seen any severe issues related to it, as most of the time it's running, which is the advantage of IBM MQ."
"It's easy to install and it's bulletproof."
"The first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage."
"Go for MQ. It will solve your problems for interconnectivity and just whatever you need to do; scalability wherever you need to go."
"We have found the MQ messaging topologies valuable."
"What is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up."
"It's fast, we are pumping in nearly 5GB of data in a day, and it just works."
 

Cons

"We would like to see more capabilities with MQ over the internet."
"We have had scalability issues with some projects in the past."
"I would like IBM to improve the performance. Right now, it is lacking and can be bulky."
"IBM MQ is still in a premature state. It is in a research phase, so it is very early to make specific suggestions about improvements."
"The solution isn't free. There are other solutions, like RabbitMQ, which are open source and absolutely free to use. It's one reason we are moving away from IBM."
"We are not really happy with their support. They don't have the skills to very efficiently answer our questions, so our relationship with them is difficult."
"The monitoring could be improved. It's a pain to monitor the throughput through the MQ. The maximum throughput for a queue or single channel isn't clear. We could also use some professional services by IBM to assess and tune the performance."
"In the next release, we would like to see more authentication capabilities embedded and included in the existing product."
"The UI is clunky for administration, eFTL at times is not fully stable and have observed a few crashes, and the content matcher could be improved for or conditions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The fee for this solution is on the higher end of the scale."
"I think the pricing is reasonable, especially with IIB as a part of it."
"We have a special contract with IBM MQ that give us a certain price."
"It is a licensed product. As compared to an open-source solution, such as RabbitMQ, it is obviously costly. If you're using IBM Message Broker, which is a licensed product, IBM MQ is included in the same license. You don't have to pay separately for IBM MQ. The license cost of IBM MQ is lesser than IBM Message Broker."
"IBM MQ has a flexible license model based on the Processor Value Unit (PVU) and I recommend it."
"Licensing for this software is on a yearly basis. The standard fee includes the maintenance and updates that are released periodically."
"To implement such an IBM solution, a company has to pay a lot in term of licensing and consultancy. A pricing model might be a better option."
"You have to license per application installation and if you expand vertically or horizontally, you will be paying for more licenses. The licenses are approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a license, it can get expensive quite quickly."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) solutions are best for your needs.
899,917 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise147
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is MQ software?
Hi As someone with 45+ years of experience in the Transaction and Message Processing world, I have seen many "MQ" solutions that have come into the market place. From my perspective, while each pro...
What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
How does IBM MQ compare with VMware RabbitMQ?
IBM MQ has a great reputation behind it, and this solution is very robust with great stability. It is easy to use, simple to configure and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocol...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

WebSphere MQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Solace, TIBCO and others in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM). Updated: May 2026.
899,917 professionals have used our research since 2012.