We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Oracle Service Bus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The solution has good integration."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"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've been pleased with the level of technical support."
"It is stable."
"The communication between applications is already defined, which means that you don't have to redefine your service infrastructure at the lower level."
"I like the ease of deployment and the ease of implementation."
"There are always continuous improvements that are happening."
"The interface is fine and the solution is quite robust."
"The solution is quite stable overall. We haven't witnessed any performance issues so far."
"The routing and aggregation are the most valuable features. It's split and join."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Security needs to be more integrated."
"Security features can be improved to better protect the server."
"The support for GraphQL needs to be improved, and the response time for global support could be faster."
"The inconvenient part about working with this product is that it's very heavy, requiring a lot of people and a lot of resources."
"The initial setup is likely complex for many organizations."
"We have faced a problem with the heap memory side, but that is stable now."
"It would be ideal if they could optimize it a bit."
"The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 5 reviews while Oracle Service Bus is ranked 6th in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 11 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.2, while Oracle Service Bus is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Service Bus writes "Oracle Serice Bus is a beautiful platform for integration based on Orchestraion with a powerful process engine and many connectors and additional tools". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM BPM and JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, whereas Oracle Service Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Red Hat Fuse, webMethods Integration Server and GXS BizManager. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Oracle Service Bus report.
See our list of best ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) vendors.
We monitor all ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) 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.
