Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform comparison

IBM and Red Hat are both solutions in the Application Infrastructure category. IBM is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.7. IBM holds a 1.6% mindshare in AIS, compared to Red Hat’s 8.9% mindshare. Additionally, 84% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.
IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Read 13 IBM WebSphere Message Broker reviews
  • 287 Views
  • 60 Comparison Views
84% willing to recommend
JBoss Enterprise Applicatio...
Read 7 JBoss Enterprise Application Platform reviews
  • 1,234 Views
  • 218 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

IBM WebSphere Message Broker and JBoss Enterprise Application Platform compete in the enterprise middleware market. JBoss holds an edge with its robust features, appealing to those seeking comprehensive capabilities.

Features: IBM WebSphere Message Broker supports data transformation, universal connectivity, and scalability, ensuring seamless integration across various platforms. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform provides a highly flexible environment, strong support for cloud-native applications, and robust clustering for load balancing.

Room for Improvement: IBM could simplify its complex setup process and enhance initial deployment experience. JBoss could benefit from enhanced data handling and greater focus on post-deployment support. IBM needs more agile development support, whereas JBoss should focus on improving its integration capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is recognized for its straightforward deployment and superior customer service, backed by a well-documented process and proactive support. IBM WebSphere Message Broker, although offering robust post-deployment support, demands a more complex setup, offering a smoother experience post-initial deployment.

Pricing and ROI: IBM WebSphere Message Broker generally incurs a higher setup cost, potentially extending ROI periods but is justified by strong integration capabilities. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform offers more competitive pricing, appealing to budget-conscious organizations aiming for quick ROI.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Report (Updated: June 2025).
Buyer's Guide
IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
June 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 857,028 peers since 2012

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 WebSphere Message Broker
Ranking in Application Infrastructure
16th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (8th)
JBoss Enterprise Applicatio...
Ranking in Application Infrastructure
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Application Infrastructure category, the mindshare of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is 1.6%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is 8.9%, up from 7.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Infrastructure
 

Featured Reviews

BrajendraKumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers large-sized business information processing with a time-saving setup and impressive stability
I primarily use two previews of the product for Dev and two for QA as part of the production process. Whatever tools our company is using, the cost of a license in IBM WebSphere Message Broker is about 80% of all these software or tools. The message routing capabilities satisfy workflow efficiency. The product supports message formats of XML, JSON, and SSID, which are around 24 KB to 50 KB in size. The solution supports communication protocols like STTP and TCP. Features like DataGraph need to be introduced in IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Some of the clients of our organization are using an outdated version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker for which the vendor doesn't provide direct support anymore. For the aforementioned version, our company professionals can solve the queries on their own without seeking support from IBM. During the installation of a prior version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker, sometimes I have to configure the failovers through the cluster, where issues arise, and I often seek help from the support team. The solution is being used by some medicine companies in our organization that receive sales orders from the EDR or JDE. I would not recommend the product to others as its becoming obsolete and they can rather choose a middleware solution from Amazon or Azure. But I would overall rate the product a nine out of ten.
Read full review
Gustavo Magni - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable solution with an easy initial setup process
We use the solution for the deployment of Java-based applications The solution helps my organization with simple and fast deployments. The solution is easy to configure and deploy. The solution's architecture needs improvement. Also, there could be more integration with container platforms. We…
Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"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."
"IBM WebSphere Message Broker is one of the best middleware solutions"
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"It's reliable for our day-to-day operations, ensuring fast and secure data integration across different systems."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
More IBM WebSphere Message Broker pros
"Stable and easy to handle in terms of hosting applications."
"JBoss Enterprise Application Platform works very well."
"Its technical support is excellent."
"The solution is quite stable."
"It's convenient and barebone."
"The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and performance."
"The most valuable aspect of JBoss EAP is its support for clustering and load balancing, which is essential for our applications that serve multiple users simultaneously."
 

Cons

"The product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor"
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordingly."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
More IBM WebSphere Message Broker cons
"It's hard to find out the root cause of errors."
"Its architecture needs improvement."
"This solution needs better management UI."
"A graphic user interface can be added."
"Improvement is needed in the synchronization between cluster nodes, especially under network strain."
"Lacks some functional requirements."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This product is more expensive than competing products."
"The solution is expensive."
"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."
"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."
"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."
"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"
"While I am not directly involved with the financial aspects, JBoss is known for its reasonable subscription pricing. Potential users should consider whether the cost aligns with their budget and requirements."
"It is an open-source solution."
"The solution is cost-effective."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Infrastructure solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
30%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
31%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time.
See all answers
What needs improvement with IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
There could be greater flexibility and agility in service creation for the product. As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordi...
See all answers
What do you like most about JBoss Enterprise Application Platform?
The solution is quite stable.
See all answers
What needs improvement with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform?
In my experience, it is more beneficial to embed all that into Kubernetes ( /products/kubernetes-reviews ) today. This approach makes it easier to develop, deploy, and administer applications.
See all answers
What is your primary use case for JBoss Enterprise Application Platform?
I use JBoss Enterprise Application Platform ( /products/jboss-enterprise-application-platform-reviews ) for all our web applications, both internal and external.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

IBM Integration Bus vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker Logo
IBM Integration Bus vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Compared 49% of the time
webMethods.io vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker Logo
webMethods.io vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Compared 17% of the time
IBM DataPower Gateway vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker Logo
IBM DataPower Gateway vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Compared 13% of the time
Mule ESB vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker Logo
Mule ESB vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Compared 11% of the time
IBM BPM vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker Logo
IBM BPM vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Compared 10% of the time
More IBM WebSphere Message Broker Competitors
IBM WebSphere Application Server vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Logo
IBM WebSphere Application Server vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Compared 81% of the time
Microsoft .NET Framework vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Logo
Microsoft .NET Framework vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Compared 8% of the time
Apache Web Server vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Logo
Apache Web Server vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Compared 4% of the time
Azul Zulu vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Logo
Azul Zulu vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Compared 4% of the time
IBM BPM vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Logo
IBM BPM vs JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Compared 3% of the time
More JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
IBM WebSphere Message Broker
June 2025
IBM WebSphere Message Broker reportDownload IBM WebSphere Message Broker product report
Buyer's Guide
Application Infrastructure
June 2025
JBoss Enterprise Application Platform reportDownload JBoss Enterprise Application Platform product report
 

Also Known As

WebSphere Message Broker
JBoss EAP, Red Hat EAP
 

Overview

WebSphere Message Broker is an enterprise service bus (ESB) providing connectivity and universal data transformation for service-oriented architecture (SOA) and non-SOA environments. It allows businesses of any size to eliminate point-to-point connections and batch processing regardless of platform, protocol or data format.
IBM
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (JBoss EAP) is an open source platform for modern Java applications deployed in any environment. JBoss EAP’s architecture is modular, and cloud ready. The platform offers powerful management and automation for greater developer productivity. It is based on the open source Wildfly project (formerly known as JBoss Application Server).
Red Hat
 

Sample Customers

WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin Tire
APD, Banco Azteca, Roche, Tata Sky, Frost Bank
Buyer's Guide
IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
June 2025
Free Report: IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 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.