We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ 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."The initial setup is easy."
"The methodology and the way in which the platform has been produced as a standard is most valuable. There are so many different versions of it now, but the actual basic functionality and the simplicity of it have made it far easier to be implemented in so many different instances. When I worked with the OS/2 or PS/2 machine environment, the messaging mechanisms were based upon IBM MQ. It is so versatile, which is the main reason that I'm a fan of it."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"I haven't seen any issues with respect to the message loss."
"We have found the MQ messaging topologies valuable."
"A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."
"The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is transaction processing."
"This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
"The product's feature of data transaction works fast."
"Large amounts of data can be moved pretty fast using the solution."
"The solution's best feature is its exceptional speed, delivering efficient utilization of resources."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it is open source. The licensing costs are really low and they are transparent."
"Companies can scale the solution, so long as they have server room."
"It is easy to use. The addition of more queues and more services can be managed very easily."
"The solution can scale."
"IBM MQ could improve by adding more protocols or APIs for a standard application, such as MuleSoft."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"The GUI part could be better."
"It could always be more stable and secure."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"The solution requires a lot of work to implement and maintain."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
"More documentation would be good because some features are not deeply implemented."
"The support feature could benefit from some improvement in terms of accessibility and responsiveness."
"The availability could be better."
"The product is pretty hard to configure."
"The user interface could be improved."
"I would like to see the performance of the administration portal improved and additional messaging protocols."
"VMware RabbitMQ's configuration process could be easier to understand."
"There are some security concerns that have been raised with this product."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 27 reviews while VMware RabbitMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 7 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.2, while VMware RabbitMQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Reliable and stable software with good integration but the file transfer process needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware RabbitMQ writes "Uses a memory desk processor very efficiently and performs well while maintaining a low cost". IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, Amazon SQS, TIBCO Enterprise Message Service and Red Hat AMQ, whereas VMware RabbitMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, Anypoint MQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Red Hat AMQ. See our IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ 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.
