We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and IIS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The solution has good integration."
"Microsoft's technical support has always been very good."
"The solution is highly reliable."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The interface, simplicity, and ease of management are all good features that make this user-friendly."
"IIS's best features are its management console and stability."
"IIS's most valuable feature is user-friendliness."
"We use the solution for our customer's web applications."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"In the next release, the tool should be more easily integrated and configured with other provisions. The pricing should also be made cheaper since it's very expensive now."
"Sometimes if you are using IIS in large-scale scenarios, meaning that if you are deploying an application within IIS service and you are expecting a large number of users to use this application, you can sometimes find some problems, meaning that the service can shut down by itself unexpectedly if you don't configure your IIS with the correct configuration that can handle this number of users."
"The level of technical support the solution offers could be improved."
"Occasionally, we encounter performance issues with IIS where it becomes unresponsive and requires a solution restart."
"Compared to Linux, the solution’s Windows patching is slower. I would like to improve it."
"At the moment, we have big problems with stability, and I'm not very happy at the moment. So, the stability could be improved."
"The documentation is not very detailed. They need to improve it and add to it. They should ensure there are lots of visuals to help users better understand the solution."
"The solution should improve the cluster environment and load balancing."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while IIS is ranked 1st in Application Infrastructure with 53 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while IIS is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IIS writes " A simple and easy-to-use solution but not recommended for public apps". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas IIS is most compared with NGINX Plus, Apache Web Server, Oracle WebLogic Server, Tomcat and JBoss. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. IIS report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.
