IBM Integration Bus Reviews

We use the solution for synchronizing data across the enterprise and opening data to extend its use by simplifying and making it consistent regardless of its source. 

It's for installing a line of indirection between data source and consumer to reduce contention at the source, and to add security, audit, and combine data from multiple places.

With it, we are implementing GDPR rules on data use, compensating for systems being unavailable, and delivering low latency for website users.

I have designed solutions for payment processing, Service-Oriented Architectures, micro-service architectures, data sharing and synchronization, and point to point data sharing using this product across banking, retail, and many other industries.

Many projects absorb a great deal of time and budget to find data and understand how to access it. This product allows data to be found and cataloged, allowing multiple projects to create a full directory of data in the enterprise over time.

The introduction of a mediation component allows data to be combined from multiple sources and for those sources to change or expand without impacting the consumers. In some settings, the number of consumers can be significant (100+) making adapter patterns rather expensive to maintain.

Having a single (logical) place to go for information reduces the responsibilities of the consumer for navigation - in turn allowing systems to move, update, and be replaced with reduced risk and cost. 

The cost reductions are significant but rely on proper architecture and design.

The solution's most valuable aspects include:

Data enrichment and consistent access. It reduces the need for programmers of consumer applications to understand where data is sourced, or how it is combined. It allows us to avoid the need for consumers to understand multiple API protocols and security arrangements, and in some circumstances can reduce the impact of systems being unavailable.

Data mediation and secure access. It reduces programmer error and hides the underlying systems, making it simpler to change them. It imposes a line of control between consumer and source, reducing the scope of testing needed for new consumers, and avoiding tests on consumers when the source changes.

High-performance data management for data in motion. The product supports clustering and can be tightly integrated into IBM MQ, making it a perfect platform for payment processing and high-performance data processing (50,000 tx/sec and above). For those that do not need the performance, this translates to cloud consumption savings.

Resilient communication management. The product can use transactional integrity to assure consistent data and non-loss communications (especially when combined with IBM MQ). This means that when processing large numbers of transactions no time is lost trying to discover what was lost.

The product has been well managed and continually improved throughout the time I have used it. 

There is very little that can be improved. It already contains adapters for MS-Dynamics and other enterprise packages and supports many protocols and transmission structures. 

The next versions are moving toward container use. It would be a shame to make the product highly complex just to support one pattern of deployment. It is my hope that IBM continues to focus on practical functionality that is simple and cost-effective.

We've used the solution for 20 years - since it was previously named MQ System Integrator.

IBM ACE is very well engineered and very stable. We have several customers running old versions that have been 100% reliable for their operational lives.

If an installation does encounter a failure, for example power failure, the product is good at reporting useful messages, and in combination with IBM MQ to protect data running through the system. The product can be installed in a clustered configuration to remove single points of failure, and to scale to accommodate higher loads.

It's very stable.

This solution is highly scalable and resilient. It's combined with MQ or load balancers for fault tolerance and highly parallel processing.

It's highly scalable.

In my experience, support has always been very good for this product. 

Positive

I have previously used databases to store and forward and C-programs to manipulate data. When this could no longer cope (sometime in the 1990s), I discovered IBM MQ and other messaging products, which are designed to do what we were building. The MQSI product of the time was simply magic and the latest incarnations (App Connect Enterprise) are far beyond anything that could be done with a database. 

I have reviewed other technologies, including Microsoft, open-source, and others. It remains my opinion and experience that this product delivers quicker development and more reliable outcomes.

A was working as part of the vendor team, as part of the implementation consulting organization.

Very much depends on the industry and project.

Installation of the base product has been simplified over the last five years or so, and is now fairly straight forward. 

You need an infrastructure design for the product deployment and an integration architecture and design documented and agreed to get the best from this software. It is relatively easy to program (Extended SQL, Java, and other options are available), however, it's important to think and take advice before you start.

The product is generally priced per processor core.

We use IBM Integration Bus for application integration. For example, when application A needs to communicate with application B, if Application A is sending the message data in XML format but application B understands the data in JSON format, there needs to be a tool that helps to transform the message data and route the data from one endpoint to another. In such a use case, we use IBM Integration Bus.

I'm working on version 10.0.0.12 of IIB, but we will be migrating the project that I'm currently working on to IBM App Connect Enterprise. It will most probably happen in the summer of this year.

It is deployed on-premises. After the migration to IBM App Connect Enterprise, we're planning to migrate to the cloud from on-premises.

In our project, we are using IBM Integration Bus for doing the payments. We have developed some applications in IBM Integration Bus that help with payment transactions from one client to another.

We can have multiple endpoints, and we can integrate different applications from different platforms. In a large-scale enterprise setup, it becomes so easy to establish communication between applications. You can connect an application to other applications, other legacy applications, and databases. You can also connect with those applications that are in the cloud.  You can connect with other well-known applications, such as Salesforce, SAP, and Workday, by using IBM Integration Bus.

It provides all the features that are required for day-to-day work. So far, I haven't seen any major issues that impact our work. I have been told that IBM App Connect Enterprise, which is the next version of IIB, is really good. It is better than IIB, and it gives you more coverage in terms of application integration.

I have been working with this solution for seven years.

It is stable.

You can scale the product depending upon the flux of data into your application.

It depends upon the issue we are working on. I would rate them a four out of five.

Its initial setup was not that tough or challenging. We could easily do the setup without any challenges.

Usually, we have the support team of a project. The support team takes care of such installations.

Its maintenance is easy. It doesn't take a lot of effort to maintain the product. The Infra team usually does some patching of the environment, but we haven't seen any outage of our application that impacts the business in real-time.

It is a really good product to use if there are lots of applications that need to be integrated in your enterprise. It is a very good solution for enterprise application integration and exposing your product's features to the external client through APIs. 

I have worked with other tools related to IIB, such as API Gateway and API configuration tools, in the past. They do provide a very good solution for your business if you are planning to expose your business assets by creating APIs. You can develop an API in IIB and configure it in API Connect. You can have that gateway on top of the solution. This is another feature you can leverage using IIB.

Based on my experience with this product, I would rate it an eight out of 10. This reduction of two points doesn't mean that it is not as good as other products.

Our primary use case for IBM Integration Bus is that it is rigid, scalable, and offers high availability with minimal to no data loss. We have developed services that utilize IBM MQ to transfer data. Our service is running every day at the airport.

The error handling and monitoring functionalities of IBM Integration Bus are very good. However, Red Hat offers better monitoring tools.

IBM Integration Bus can improve by implementing no-code or drag-and-drop adapters development, similar to what is available in Red Hat. Additionally, the monitoring features could be improved.

I have experience working with IBM ESB for almost ten years.

I would rate the solution's stability at nine out of ten.

I would rate the solution's scalability at eight out of ten.

The customer service and support can be rated as eight out of ten, and I find them to be good.

Positive

Before using IBM Integration Bus, we used various other solutions, including TIPCO. I don't remember all of them now.

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus was very difficult, especially during development. It was challenging to configure and install the solution on personal laptops or PCs when trying to download the free version for testing.

We used a third party for the deployment. We used to develop on top of an Integration Bus, however, we did not do the startup installation or installation field ourselves.

The pricing of IBM Integration Bus is very high, which is the biggest negative for us. It is one of the reasons why we opted for a different solution now.

I would recommend IBM Integration Bus because of its scalability and high stability.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

It is used for the banking domain and telco. We use it for integration between vendors from core banking and the other channels, for example, buyers, CRM and codes.

The most valuable thing is the loose coupling and making the change in only one stack of the ESB layer or the middleware layer. This helps in big projects and when we have multiple channels calling back at the same time.

The Toolkit itself is based on Eclipse and Java, and it does not respond sometimes. When we are working on the Toolkit using or working on our PCs or remote desktop the program has issues with performance. The performance needs to be enhanced. More labs for developers who want to learn about this technology for trial. They may provide a trial version of App Connect or Toolkit to try it for themselves.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for the past five years.

It is very stable and used by very large companies and banking in EMEA, or in Egypt and the Middle East. It is used in very stable projects and critical ones that have payment transactions, like wallets or through transactions, and internet banking.

It is very scalable.  We have twenty different developer and administrator teams working with it.

If we have to fix an installation or other support needed, an administrator opens a ticket with IBM and they support it, especially if it is in the license agreement with them. But, I am a developer, not related to technical support. From the community side, I would rate technical support a seven out of ten because IBM documentation is available over the internet and on other websites.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and takes about one minute to deploy

We have the enterprise edition, and it is licensed yearly. I do not know what the cost is.

They can converge other products, ESB, or SOAR architecture. I may recommend IBM as a solution tool for a business if they are looking for a stable environment. They will find support on the community forum. I would rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

IBM Integration Bus can be deployed in many ways, such as on-premise, cloud, and hybrid. 

The current customer that we have wants to have a hybrid deployment. We're investigating how they can manage to do it. For the hybrid deployment, they will have an instance running in a docker image, or in an Amazon AWS. The heavy operations will be done by the on-premise version. Which is what we currently have.

The most valuable features of the IBM Integration Bus are flexibility. It's also an alternative for integrating it with other projects, which we are not ready at this time to do, such as switching to tunnels. The tunnels would be used with other partners to make sure everything is secured.

IBM Integration Bus could improve by having a more lightweight installation. Additionally, automation could improve.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for approximately 13 years.

IBM Integration Bus is highly stable.

We have approximately four clients using this solution.

The technical support is very good, they have a fast response.

The installation of the IBM Integration Bus was straightforward. The time frame that it takes for the deployment depends on the environment the customer has. 

The licensing model of IBM Integration Bus is good. It's a yearly subscription. However, the price is depending on the model that you choose. If it's a Cloud version, then you can pay per month or you can pay it annually upfront. There are three-year options available, but it depends on what deployment you have.

As more people are moving operations toward the Cloud. The Clouds are offering subscriptions. They will charge you based on what they're processing. Whereas the on-premise version, the vendors offer a perpetual license. It doesn't have those limitations that the subscriptions models have for the number of transactions. What most of the vendors are doing is they will more or less charge you for a small, medium, or large package based on the number of transactions and they will bill your account.

IBM Integration Bus is a very good solution and they have come a long way with improvements over the years.

I rate IBM Integration Bus a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for integrations of traffic between internal applications, communications, and transactions between various internal applications. We also use it for integration with various external parties.

Before we implemented IBM to integrate with other external parties, we had buckets of applications to build, and maintenance was difficult, as was support. On top of that, integration wasn't well controlled and managed. Right now, post-implementation of IBM ESB, we have a better structure. We have better teams in development and response to customers. We have an application that is centrally managed and monitored. We have better SOA experience in our development process.

The feature we find most useful is the ease of development.

It provides a variable within our application it can easily be used across various applications. 

ESQ is very robust and easy to learn. That's the language the solution is based on. 

The solution can scale.

The stability is mostly pretty good.

There are experiences we have on the application, such as latency issues. There are no inherent components for you to throttle and measure the velocity of transactions. For that, you have to get a separate application and set up more robust rules. Then, you can handle API throttling and a number of business logic and rules. You need to implement DataPower, in order to have this. It should have been integrated into a single application rather than having to deal with various applications and components. It would be nice if everything could be packaged under one solution.

Today, the IBM business rule engine, the DataPower is outside the Enterprise Service Bus. It's sold as a different feature or application. If it could be integrated, then it's able to handle a lot more of what we are doing now rather than just have a stateless ESB that you can't do much on, and a set of normal business rules.

If you have the business rule engine that can help us measure velocity, throttle, monetization, et cetera, within the ESB, it would be better than it is now. There won't be any need for one to start looking out for any possible change in the near future.

The initial setup is a bit complex. 

This is a very expensive product.

We've been using the solution for more than five years at this point. 

There is some latency and slowness in the application. At times, we have to restart the server, and there are some errors we can't handle. We send those to IBM. It's relatively stable, however, periodically, we have problems, which is why we have to get IBM to help us resolve them. That said, I would describe the product as stable.

In terms of extensibility to other applications after development, it's highly extensible. The solution can scale. 

We have developers, who develop various integration requirements, and we have support. Outside that, we don't have physical users using it. There are about 10 developers in all, that handle various requirements that come along. The support unit is about five people and they are handling the support.

We don't deal with IBM directly. There's a local partner of IBM that assists us. We only have a direct relationship with IBM, when the local partner cannot handle a problem. Our contract is designed with IBM in such a way that we have to go through their local partner. In terms of responsiveness, the local partner is good. I wouldn't say excellent, however, they are good in response time. In terms of timeline for issue resolution, TAT for issue resolution, they are fair.

Before we went to IBM, we didn't use a different solution, however, we checked in our industry and we checked how people felt about Microsoft middleware, and they didn't have a good experience. It's not robust, the support wasn't strong, et cetera. Therefore, we chose IBM. We were swayed by how other organizations, including banks in Nigeria, were mostly seeing success with IBM.

We are using WSO2 for some applications, however, we do not rely on it completely as it is open-source and if we run into issues we cannot rely on help from any support.

Setting up the solution is not straightforward. It's difficult and complex. We needed assistance in order to manage the process properly. It's not something you can just pick up, and then, run on your own. You need help from a partner, which involves additional costs.

We didn't do it alone. We worked with IBM, and then, IBM nominated a local partner in Nigeria that worked with us to set this up.

The solution is very expensive. 

We looked at another solution called WSO2. It is a lot easier to set up. It's easier to use, and it's less expensive. However, the challenge we have with that, is that the support is lacking as it is an open-source application. The support is not so strong. That's the only reservation we had for that. Outside that, we are also using it for some other applications as well.

The prominent other contenders were WebLogic from Oracle, and whatever was provided by Microsoft. Among the three then, IBM came out on top in our assessment and rating. However, with the benefit of the insights we now have, if we were to do the same process again, over five years, WSO2 has done so well, and some other middleware is also doing well. Likely we would not choose IBM if we had to choose again.

We are customers and end-users.

I'd rate the solution around a seven out of ten.

I would advise companies to evaluate and consider the options and whether they make sense vis-a-vis the benefit they hope to derive is worth the while. IBM is not cheap. They need to consider costs and make sure they have internal resources available to them. Those using the solution need to be well trained. Otherwise, the company will end up depending on third parties for everything, and that will drive up the costs further. 

I'd also suggest companies implement such a solution early. Load balancing is very critical in our experience. We didn't implement load balancing immediately, and that affected us. As a company is implementing, it should consider load balancing. Rather than invest on the on-prem, a company should consider the cloud. We did on IBM Unix servers on-prem, and that's pretty expensive.

We use IBM Integration Bus with IBM DataPower for IT integration. It’s the most used and essential component. For data security and governance, we use it with HiSphere. It’s also integrated with Outlook for handling video files.

The Aspera feature for high-speed transfer is highly effective. For DataPower, we use it to export our servers and integrate with government sectors. It's also used internally to integrate isolated solutions and manage traffic overload.

IBM Integration Bus is a reliable solution that helps us handle performance challenges effectively. However, I believe there is room for improvement in the pricing structure to make it more accessible. As far as IBM Integration Bus is considered for other organizations, it has strong performance capabilities and integration features.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for two years.

Integration Bus is quite stable, I would rate it at eight out of ten.

In terms of scalability, it's a solid ten. IBM's technical support is good, I'd rate it at an eight.    

The installation was manageable, although it required specific skills in the Open-Sec environment. It took us about two weeks to install and configure everything, depending on the environment complexity and the number of servers. Currently, around thirteen technical users are working with IBM Integration Bus in our organization.

Overall, I recommend IBM Integration Bus with a rating of nine out of ten.

I worked with Integration Bus for a UK-based insurance client and banking domain client. Our main use cases are for integrating different systems. We were involved in integrating their master data management domain.

The message queue connectors are the most valuable feature. They have built-in connectors for most of the systems, like SAP and Oracle Database.

The password settings need improvement. 

I have been using Integration Bus for five years. 

The solution is highly stable. 

The scalability is very high. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The pricing of the solution is high. 

Overall, I would rate the product a ten out of ten.