We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and TIBCO Rendezvous based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, TIBCO, Aurea and others in Business Activity Monitoring."I like the architecture it provides seamlessly for assured delivery."
"It improves reliability and guarantees that messages are not lost."
"IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7."
"It is useful for exchanging information between applications."
"I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use."
"The product helps us monitor messages with other queues, view duplicated messages and control undelivered messages."
"The usability of the solution is very good."
"TIBCO Rendezvous has a strategy to communicate in the network between the DMO of the product. They provide strategy through secure communication. They use the UDP protocol, but It's not a resilient protocol. They put another protocol to create a type of guarantee. It has a high level of communication between the DMO. This is the best capability the solution has."
"The initial setup is difficult. Creating your own cluster is difficult. Working with cluster repositories is difficult. Issue management with IBM MQ is difficult."
"They have provided a Liberty Profile in the Web Console for administration, and that could be further enhanced. It is not fit for use by an enterprise. They have to get rid of their WebSphere process and develop a front-end on Node.js or the like."
"IBM MQ is not very user-friendly."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
"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."
"IBM MQ could streamline its complexity to be more like Kafka without the channel complexities of clusters, making it more straightforward."
"The solution requires a lot of work to implement and maintain."
"Should have more integration in the monitoring tools."
"TIBCO Rendezvous is currently restricted in a cloud environment and it would be more useful in a hybrid cloud setup. It does not work correctly in a cloud environment alone. This is something they can improve in the future."
Earn 20 points
IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 158 reviews while TIBCO Rendezvous is ranked 4th in Business Activity Monitoring. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while TIBCO Rendezvous is rated 8.0. 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 TIBCO Rendezvous writes "Good communication, stable, and responsive support". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Amazon SQS, whereas TIBCO Rendezvous is most compared with TIBCO FTL and PubSub+ Event Broker.
See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors and best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Activity Monitoring 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.
