IBM Integration Bus Reviews

Our prime use case of Integration Bus is for message enrichment and message transformations. 

The solution offers good performance and it's stable. The message enrichment and message transformations are great features and the solution also has great security.

There are a few issues; the memory footprint needs to be improved. Memory replacements for on-prem should be minimized. Nowadays, if an application takes 4GB of RAM, that should be the minimum. Having this solution on-prem, is taking more memory and that memory footprint should be minimized.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution can be scaled horizontally and vertically.

The initial setup is straightforward and took a maximum of two hours. Our technical team had eight people dealing with the end-to-end deployment. 

I recommend this solution, it's an industry standard product.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We are, of course, using the latest version. 

We use the solution for bridging the gap between different legacy systems. Re-usability is another function of the solution. So too, we use it to limit the challenges faced between different systems that are unable to communicate at the same speed and rate, or that need to talk among different systems, to utilize a channel which is bigger and better, to make use of the back-end or in respect of some other point-to-point integration need. As such, our uses for the solution vary depending on the customer. An example would be that which relates to a banking industry, for which there would be a core banking system, the need for card systems, ATM transactions, et cetera. Middleware plays a key role in the usability of these services. The goal is to avoid point-to-point integration between the channels and the back-end systems making use of the solution.

We have come across many customer complaints about the excessive time it takes for IBM to provide customer and technical support. 

Our organization has been using IBM Integration Bus in various branches, spanning a host of  locations, since before I joined 14 years ago. It has been doing so for the past 15 to 20 years. 

I consider the solution to be one of the most stable in the market, in comparison with others such as Oracle and this assessment I maintain on an ongoing basis. I have received much feedback from customers about the solution's stability. 

The solution is scalable, but we have yet to receive the full review and feedback. This is because we have been informed that the latest systems have only recently been produced. So, I cannot give you complete feedback about the scalability of the solution at the moment. The latest deployment is on a container platform.

We have received many complaints from customers that the customer and technical support should be faster. 

I believe the initial setup was easy, but this is a question best taken up with the technical team. 

I use the traditional licensing model, which I believe to not be on a monthly basis, as the solution is not cloud-based. 

I don't mind the pricing.

90 percent of days the solution is on the client enrollment. We are hoping to encounter good business cases, involving integration planning, as the trend is for people to gradually transition to the cloud, the government initiative being that involving Azure. 

As we are a service provider, I cannot give you exact figures about the number of users in our organization who are making use of the solution. As mentioned, this depends on the customer, with each one involving its own user type. 

I would, of course, recommend this solution to others.

I rate IBM Integration Bus as an eight out of ten. 

Although my organization is not a bank, it does have communication needs throughout its different departments. 

While maintenance and support of the solution, like that of Dell Boomi, are very expensive, in the long run, though, say... six months to a year, it will be worthwhile for running one's business. The expense stems from the communication needs which necessitate the support of many preferences.

An issue which should be addressed concerns the difficulty of the product connecting to SAP.  In contrast, Mule has developed many connectors so that it can interact with multiple points. This allows us to write our own Java programming for, say, better database connectivity.

As the databases have different versions, we have different connectors for opening them. 

With Mule Force, we will write our own connector.  

While we do have different types of storage capacity, including that of hardware, RAM and transactions per minute, this is an area that should be addressed. There needs to be more storage capacity for logins and database file storage. Transactions per minute is a point that will need to be hammered out by senior management in its SLA. 

When it comes to the technical support of IBM Integration Bus, we are talking about a good product. As with Oracle and Microsoft, the problem with IBM revolves around maintenance, as well as integration. Owing to the expense, there will be insufficient resources. 

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus was not complex. 

The product is usually very easy to deploy.

The product was only integrated with IBM servers. 

As mentioned, the maintenance and support are very expensive. 

Every bank has data available in the mainframe and there is a need to connect to this and extract it, which is where ELT loads come in.

While I would not say that IBM Integration Bus is not a good product, I would point out that it is limited to its own infrastructure. IBM Integration Bus lacks connectors for connecting with other technologies, even though it is not limited to its one cloud. These must be developed from other technologies, such as Azure. If I wish to interact with Azure in the cloud then I must develop a connector to do so. Moreover, IBM is large and we need to have smaller solutions. 

I would rate it a four out of ten. 

We use the solution for data integration. We have different kinds of information such as file feeds, messages, and inbound software that need to be confirmed and delivered to the platform of our clients as a message.

We have benefited by using this solution from the IAB, we have been able to use different delivery types.

I have found the inbound and outbound adapter confirmations valuable.

The tracing and debugging features are not up to date with more modern technology available.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

The solution has been stable.

The scalability has been excellent.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We did the implementation through our in-house team and it took approximately one day to complete.

The price of the license could be cheaper.

I rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the products that we propose for our clients.

Some of our clients for this product are banks.

IBM Integration Bus is flexible, easy to use, and easy to configure.

I would like to be able to build an Integration Bus cluster that is active-active.

This is a scalable product.

We have five or six customers who are using it.

I have seen no problems with respect to technical support.

We have experienced no trouble installing this product.

It takes a few days to deploy.

We have a team of 10 or 11 people for deployment and maintenance.

The pricing could be improved to make it more competitive.

This is a product that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are working on MQ, soap and rest based services. Some clients are accessing our services and vice versa.

Yes IIB help us to shape up our organization in service oriented architecture. Usability has increased and integration has become easier.

Multiple protocols support,  development environment is user friendly.

Documentation is not easy to understand.

There should be inclusion of more and more adapters that make this product more usable.

I've been using IBM Integration Bus for four years.

IBM Integration Bus is a stable solution. As far as the technical side is concerned, we don't have an issue. 

IBM Integration Bus is easy to scale.

IBM technical support is fine, and we have a good relationship with them.

The installation is very simple. I've been working with the Oracle platform as well, and the Oracle platform installation is quite difficult compared to IBM Integration Bus.

We are working in the bank, and we implement everything internally ourselves. We are maintaining it, and we don't have to do too much. We have a separate team for maintenance. We have administrators as well on the operations side. They are looking after it.

When I compare it to other products that are available in the marketplace, I rate it better than others because it's easy to develop things, and it's easy to handle. I also use Oracle, and I prefer IBM Integration Bus to Oracle.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give IBM Integration Bus an eight.

The interface is quite stable.

Licensing is too high. It is quite expensive. We don't have a lot of clients who apply for it because they cannot justify the price. They know it's a good product but it just is too expensive for them. So we have to send them to products that are cheaper. 

It's scalable. We don't have that concern for IBM products.

Expanding the product would depend on our client's needs. We don't have any restrictions. 

Our installation is quite fast, but the process or the competition of user testing is what takes a longer time. Normally the user has to do a Tableau test, so it's not just the deployment. After the installation, they have to spend time to test.

I would rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

We are looking forward to the pricing packaging because we do like the product, but we are don't go for it because the price is too high and we not able to sell it to our customer.

I am a developer and this is one of the products that I use in that capacity.

What I like best are the monitoring features.

Technical support is something that should be better.

Lowering the price would be an improvement.

The deployment should be easier.

I have been working with IBM Integration Bus for approximately three years.

This is a stable product.

We have not needed to scale because we use multithreading in the flow.

The technical support for this product is not very good. Sometimes, examples we get when we ask support for help do not work.

It also does not have a large community.

We did not use a similar product before implementing IBM Integration Bus. In some instances, we have used microservice applications instead.

The deployment is complex and you need to have an experienced administrator.

The price of this product could be lower.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.