IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management comparison

IBM and SAP are both solutions in the Application Infrastructure category. IBM is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.0, while SAP is ranked #22. IBM holds a 2.1% mindshare in AIS, compared to SAP’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 84% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution.

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Read 13 IBM WebSphere Message Broker reviews

971 Views
340 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

SAP NetWeaver Business Rule...

Read 2 SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management reviews

194 Views
192 Comparison Views

0% willing to recommend

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

SAP NetWeaver Business Rule...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

IBM WebSphere Message Broker and SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management are products in the business process management solutions category. IBM WebSphere Message Broker seems to have the upper hand with superior integration capabilities, making it more versatile for diverse enterprise environments.

Features: IBM WebSphere Message Broker provides application connectivity with versatile message routing, data transformation, and supports extensive protocols. SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management offers efficient rule authoring, seamless simulations, and optimizes data accuracy within SAP ecosystems.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM WebSphere Message Broker allows straightforward deployment with comprehensive documentation supporting enterprise applications. SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management eases deployment in SAP infrastructures, offering tight integration with SAP modules. SAP provides more tailored customer service for SAP environments, whereas WebSphere supports various enterprise applications.

Pricing and ROI: IBM WebSphere Message Broker typically has a higher setup cost due to its enterprise capabilities but delivers significant ROI through enhanced integration and reduced downtime. SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management generally incurs a lower upfront cost, providing a quicker ROI for SAP system users through optimized rule processing.

To learn more, read our detailed Application Infrastructure Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Application Infrastructure

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

17th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (9th)

SAP NetWeaver Business Rule...

Ranking in Application Infrastructure

22nd

Average Rating

6.0

Reviews Sentiment

8.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Application Infrastructure category, the mindshare of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is 2.1%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management is 1.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Infrastructure Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
IBM WebSphere Message Broker	2.1%
SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management	1.2%
Other	96.7%

Application Infrastructure

Featured Reviews

BrajendraKumar

Technical Architect at HCL Technologies

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

Herve Guerin

Architecte SAP & Infrastructure at Teamwork

Good stability and good visibility but requires a better user interface

We're an SAP partner. We do also deploy some clients to the cloud, but 95% of the work we do with the solution is on-premises. I'd rate the solution six out of ten. I'm an architect, so I don't know enough about the implementation side to really be able to share any relevant first-hand experience in regards to setting the solution up.

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

"Straightforward development and deployment."

"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."

"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."

"IBM WebSphere Message Broker is one of the best middleware solutions"

"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."

"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."

"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker pros

"There are many features of the solution that are quite useful. For us, the most valuable aspect may be visibility."

Cons

"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."

"The product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor"

"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."

"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."

"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

"The solution can add container engines such as docker."

"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."

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker cons

"The solution could improve its user interface."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"The solution is expensive."

"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"

"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."

"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."

"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."

Information not available

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

11%

Insurance Company

Transportation Company

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Large Enterprise	10

No data available

Questions from the Community

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 is your primary use case for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?

We use the product for exposing services at the application level, integrating with various architectures like WebSphere, and handling static service creation.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

IBM Integration Bus vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 24% of the time

webMethods.io vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 14% of the time

Mule ESB vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 12% of the time

IIS vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 10% of the time

IBM BPM vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 7% of the time

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker Competitors

Apache Web Server vs SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management

Compared 100% of the time

More SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

January 2026

Download IBM WebSphere Message Broker product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Infrastructure

January 2026

SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management report

Download SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management product report

Also Known As

WebSphere Message Broker

NetWeaver Business Rules Management

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

SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management (SAP NetWeaver BRM) is part of the SAP NetWeaver AS Java. SAP NetWeaver BRM enables your organization to externalize business rules and manage them flexibly across multiple installations for greater agility, for consistent and transparent enforcement of policies across the entire enterprise.

SAP

Sample Customers

WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin Tire

Dansk Supermarked A/S, Ego Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd, Kaeser Kompressoren, Lenovo

Buyer's Guide

Application Infrastructure

January 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, IBM, F5 and others in Application Infrastructure. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.