"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"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."
"In case there is something that doesn't work out of the box, you have the flexibility to customize it."
"This is one of the critical products for my company and we use it extensively. We currently use each and every feature of Oracle SOA."
"In Oracle SOA Suite some applications are not able to use REST, but it can support both SOAP and REST. You're able to integrate quite a lot of systems, which may not be able to in other solutions. You can also use XML and JSON. It is a standardizing type of tool. It doesn't matter whether I'm using JSON or XML, it can convert them."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The technical support is good, we have premier support which costs extra."
"An important area that can be improved is the product's data monitoring. When we use the solution for interfacing or end-to-end data monitoring, we want to know exactly where the data is going and exactly where it is failing, or where there is an issue."
"They supply lots of documentation but finding what we need is challenging at times."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Application Infrastructure with 6 reviews while Oracle SOA Suite is ranked 9th in Application Infrastructure with 3 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.2, while Oracle SOA Suite 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 SOA Suite writes "Integrates well, versatile, and high level support". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM BPM and WebLogic Suite, whereas Oracle SOA Suite is most compared with WebLogic Suite, Mule ESB, SAP NetWeaver, IBM WebSphere Application Server and NGINX Plus. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Oracle SOA Suite 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.
