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

IBM MQ vs TIBCO FTL comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 September 2026, in the Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) category, the mindshare of IBM MQ is 16.0%, down from 24.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TIBCO FTL is 5.6%, down from 6.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM MQ16.0%
TIBCO FTL5.6%
Other78.4%
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

"The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing."
"This is the main component of our systems for delivering service to our customers, and without MQ, we would not be able to work or offer our services."
"The reliability of the queuing is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
"It doesn't lose transactions, it's fast, and it runs on every platform."
"The most valuable features of IBM MQ are its guarantee of delivery, ability to handle high volume while maintaining high availability, and robust security measures such as SSL, TLS, and RBAC."
"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."
"Stability-wise, it's very good. People have been using it for 15 to 20 years. MQ and IIB are the most stable products from IBM."
"It's fast, we are pumping in nearly 5GB of data in a day, and it just works."
 

Cons

"With MQ, we always have trouble with the initial priming call failing."
"They could integrate monitoring into the solution, a bit more than they do now."
"Maybe it should have something with respect to being able to provide a graphical view of the data elements that we are processing."
"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."
"IBM MQ has limitations regarding scaling options. The licensing costs associated with scaling up and down were significant, which is why we are moving to Apache-based services such as Kafka."
"Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues."
"I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka."
"IBM MQ could improve capacity, monitoring, and automatization."
"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

"I rate the product price a four on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"Small-scale companies may not want to buy IBM MQ because of its high cost."
"The fee for this solution is on the higher end of the scale."
"IBM MQ has a flexible license model based on the Processor Value Unit (PVU) and I recommend it."
"Most of our customers are quite happy with the solution but they have an issue with the cost. They want to move to cheaper solutions."
"I think IBM needs to look at its pricing. The prices of IBM products should be simple. The old way of pricing should now be moving on to the cloud to be pay as you go, a plan-based kind of pricing."
"The problem with this product is that it's a little bit expensive."
"The price is high."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) solutions are best for your needs.
913,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
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: September 2026.
913,349 professionals have used our research since 2012.