We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, F5, Apache and others in Application Infrastructure."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."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Internal workflow approval around ESS and MSS leave days, capex approval as well as internal communication to the business have improved the way my organization functions."
"From the use of this solution, we have been able to establish better processes and have greater management of our company."
"They integrated it with the SAP router."
"Workflow functionality and internal portal capabilities are the most important features."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"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."
"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."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The user interface could be improved by making it more user-friendly."
"External portal functionality with suppliers and customers needs improvement."
"Due to our business, some setups were very complex."
"We encountered stability issues, especially on external functionality around its RFP capabilities."
"Our customers expect that a page will open within one second, and I doubt this will happen. Also, opening documentation takes time. Fixing this will help the customer and help to meet their expectations."
More SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal is ranked 21st in Application Infrastructure. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal is rated 8.0. 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 SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal writes "The UI makes the setup easy to do from anywhere". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas SAP NetWeaver Enterprise Portal is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, NGINX Plus, Apache Web Server, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM WebSphere Application Server.
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.
