We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Oracle WebCenter based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"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 documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The solution has good integration."
"A great solution for storing and searching large volumes of documents with easy access."
"Integration within the solution is very good."
"You can move workloads in between sub-servers so that you don't overload a portion of the server."
"Oracle integrates well with other products to cover Big Data."
"It's a very scalable solution and the performance is pretty good. The scalability, in my opinion, is the biggest advantage."
"WebCenter's interface is very user-friendly."
"The WebCenter Content is its most valuable feature. After we update a document in WebCenter Content, it can be update automatically in our intranet."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"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."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The speed of the backup should be enhanced."
"I would like them to add more Web 2.0 features."
"WebCenter requires a lot of design effort to upload content to our regular system."
"This solution needs to support translation into the Arabic language."
"There are many document management systems that offer pretty much the same functionalities but at a lower price. The product as such is pretty good. However, the pricing is not comparable. They need to adjust their pricing to be more competitive on the market."
"The solution should be offered in Persian. Right now, our version is in English, and there's a bit of a language barrier between the users and the product."
"Does not seem to be totally compatible with Windows 10 as of our current version."
"Its functions need more stability."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Oracle WebCenter is ranked 22nd in Customer Experience Management with 12 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Oracle WebCenter is rated 7.0. 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 Oracle WebCenter writes "Gives me easy access, connection and compatibility with all of the Oracle products". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Oracle WebCenter is most compared with Oracle Content Management, SharePoint, Adobe Experience Manager, WebLogic Suite and Liferay Digital Experience Platform. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Oracle WebCenter report.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.
