We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Windows Server AppFabric 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 solution has good integration."
"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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"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."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"The most valuable feature is AppFabric's hosting solution, which is what we need for running workflows."
"The product's deployment phase was very easy."
"It is very usable and easy to understand. Antivirus and VPN are the main features being used now. It allows my clients to access the network from home, which was very crucial because of the pandemic."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"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 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 solution can add container engines such as docker."
"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."
"Microsoft will stop supporting the product next year, and we can't run unsupported programs in our systems."
"The product is unable to connect with different cloud services."
"Its price and licensing policy can be improved. It could be a little cheaper. Licensing is sometimes confusing. There are so many different options. It is difficult to find out what to buy or what to choose for my necessity."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Windows Server AppFabric is ranked 18th in Application Infrastructure with 3 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Windows Server AppFabric 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 Windows Server AppFabric writes "Offers good monitoring capabilities and ease of setup". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Windows Server AppFabric is most compared with IIS.
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.
