IBM Integration Bus Reviews

The use cases of IBM Integration Bus include transforming data from one system to another or from one application to another. Some of the systems are expecting a different format, while others may accept only a certain format. We do the transformation and routing of the data.

IBM Integration Bus brings very beneficial improvements, as we use it for any data transformation. We utilize IBM Integration Bus to transform data, such as when someone has to buy one product. All the data is available in SAP, which includes amounts, purchase orders, and any related details, so the Finance team needs to know how many orders they have completed and what the sales amount and types of purchases are. Everything is examined, and the Finance team knows all the data through the IBM tool we are using for transformations.

The features I find most valuable in IBM Integration Bus are very useful for performing transformations from systems such as SAP to Salesforce, and from Salesforce to S/4 and 365. There are many systems, and it is flexible for everyone to use.

Monitoring and analytics of IBM Integration Bus impact us as we have logging systems. In live data, if anything happens, it will be an automatic process. When we complete our development, we move it to production, and it functions automatically. We continuously monitor for errors or messages that come in, so we get alerts.

As for improvements in IBM Integration Bus, we are getting another feature of the retry mechanism now. Version 8.13 was upgraded, and we started using the retry mechanism itself, and we are using nodes in the development level. They are improving one of the nodes such as the HTTP request node, implementing the indirect retry mechanism itself, and we are getting new features.

I have been working with IBM Integration Bus for a total of five plus years.

With IBM Integration Bus, there were no challenges or difficulties with installing it, and it takes only 1 to 2 minutes. We never deploy directly as we are deploying in Dev itself. We have a separate team for Azure, so when we raise any pull request, they will deploy it.

In my experience, it is a scalable solution, and IBM Integration Bus is indeed a stable product.

I would rate the technical support of IBM Integration Bus as nine out of ten; it was the best. When we raise any PR, IBM comes and supports the team with that PR.

Positive

Before IBM Integration Bus, I did not work with similar products from different vendors. I mostly worked on banking projects in Azure.

In my deployment team, there are totally 30 to 40 people who provide support for deployment.

I am not so clear on seeing any financial benefits from implementing IBM Integration Bus.

Regarding the pricing setup cost and licensing for IBM Integration Bus, I believe it is expensive. The IBM tool is now expensive because they moved to the cloud. I am not sure about the previous costs, but many competitors have emerged, such as Mulesoft. However, I believe it will incur more costs now that it is cloud-based, as they provide numerous services.

There are many options or alternatives that could be evaluated for IBM Integration Bus.

Regarding legacy systems integration, I don't have extensive knowledge as I've been in interviews for about four to five months. About legacy systems, it refers to the body.

I have rated IBM Integration Bus a 10 out of 10.

We've been using IBM Integration Bus for seven years to create a service-oriented architecture in our bank and implement SOAR infrastructure using this tool. It helps us with internal services for core banking and different digital channels. We also use it to expose our services to other banks and companies and consume services from outside our bank using proxy servers.

IBM Integration Bus is helpful for complex integrations because it has tools and functionality to integrate with other systems. We face some challenges with external integrations, mostly related to certificates, but it's not too difficult. IBM Integration Bus facilitates these integrations well. For data transfer, especially with external systems, IBM Digital Express has been very useful.

Everything needs to be improved. As far as integration and the cloud are concerned, things are moving to the cloud side. When you use Kubernetes and similar technologies, IBM Integration Bus doesn't greatly facilitate these environments. Maybe I don't know enough about that, but I feel that when it comes to the DevOps environment, the tool needs to be deployed on production in a way that's just like pods.

Cloud integration needs to be more facilitated with the DevOps environment. This IBM technology needs to adapt because in the recent world, in the real world, we see that everything is just a cloud pod. Whenever you need to scale anything, you just put some cloud and pod and improve it, make any server and deploy it. But in IBM Integration Bus, there is a problem because we can't do this as easily. In short, IBM needs to more emphasize or more integrate with the cloud environments as well, similar to DevOps. There are limitations in IBM Integration Bus when it comes to DevOps.

I have been working with the product for seven years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

The tool  is very scalable. In our production environment, we currently run about 60-70 instances, but it can handle up to 280 instances. We haven't yet consumed IBM Integration Bus maximum capability for this, so the scaling system is good enough.

If I had to rate the scalability between one and ten, I'd give it a nine. I think it's nine or even ten, you could say. But let's say nine, leaving one point for potential improvements.

I've consulted technical support. It's good enough, but it needs to be improved a bit. Sometimes, when you're in a hurry, they don't reply or respond quickly.

Neutral

I've worked with both IBM Integration Bus and Oracle products for message routing. In my experience, the IBM Integration Bus is more user-friendly and easier to use. When I compare it to Oracle products, I find that the IBM Integration Bus is simpler for new developers to learn. It's accommodating for developers coming from different technologies. We use ESQL in IBM Integration Bus, which I find easier to work with than Oracle's XSLT. Oracle's products are more complex when adopted as services and development tools. I'd say IBM Integration Bus is more accessible for developers of all experience levels - new, experienced, or somewhere in between.

I think the initial setup for the IBM Integration Bus is easy. A few years back, with versions 8 or 9, we had some difficulties with installation. But now, it's not that difficult. It's pretty user-friendly, and the installations are easy as well when it comes to environment management.

If I had to rate the initial setup between one and ten, with ten being very easy, I'd give it a seven. Well, I think eight would be better. As developers, we don't get too involved with installations and infrastructure setups - that's often handled by admins. So I can't give you a fully accurate number. But from my perspective as an engineer, I'd say eight. I'm not giving it a ten because there's always room for improvement. The tool's deployment is quick. 

The tool helped save some costs. All the tools related to integrations, whether it's IBM Integration, Oracle, or TIBCO, are helping us. They make time to market easier, simpler, and faster. Regarding being cost-effective, yes, we have saved a lot of cost. For example, we're connected with OneLink API. OneLink always charges for integration. Using the tool, we've integrated directly with all the telcos in our country rather than using a middleware like OneLink, which charges us a lot. When we directly integrate with them, we've minimized costs significantly. So overall, the integrations make us cost-effective as well. This is one example of how we've saved much money in production.

As customers, we always try to buy things as cheaply as possible. But the price for the IBM Integration Bus is fine. When we compare it to competitors, it's pretty much the same. However, there are a lot of open-source integration platforms coming to the market as well. So overall, the price is fine as far as licensed products are concerned.

I recommend the IBM Integration Bus based on my experience using it for some time. We've successfully implemented a complete service-oriented architecture in our organization using it. As far as output is concerned, we've successfully implemented a lot of service-oriented architecture with IBM Integration. It's also been a success story for us in our organization and others. That's why I recommend it. It's a better option to adopt. It's a good thing.

For an overall rating, I think I would give it an eight out of ten. I'll leave two points for potential improvements.

IBM Integration Bus is primarily used for integrating different channels with the main core banking system, specifically in the banking sector. It can also be used to connect this Integration Bus in other verticals to easily add or integrate surrounding applications or channels with the main core application.

The implementation of IBM Integration Bus has increased efficiency and reduced costs.

IBM Integration Bus makes it very easy to integrate different channels with the main core banking system. It is user-friendly and a value-added tool for banks and other verticals. 

Its error-handling capabilities are commendable due to the specific segmentation and error specification, which makes it easy to address and solve errors accordingly.

There is room for improvement in providing more specific error messages and error criteria.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for almost three years.

The stability of IBM Integration Bus is rated between eight and nine out of ten, and I did not encounter any issues with it.

IBM Integration Bus has high scalability, which I would rate as ten out of ten.

The technical support for IBM Integration Bus is rated as nine out of ten.

Positive

I previously used Oracle Service Bus but switched to IBM Integration Bus because IBM is less expensive in terms of licensing.

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus was easy, and I would rate it as ten out of ten.

The deployment was done by a third-party integrator.

IBM Integration Bus is less expensive than Oracle in terms of licensing. On a scale of one to ten, with one being cheap and ten being expensive, I would rate it as six, which is in the middle.

I would recommend IBM Integration Bus to other people. I rate the overall solution as ten out of ten.

We use the product to connect legacy systems to newer accounting platforms. SAP, more specifically.

What IBM brings to the party is its whole support infrastructure. I'm scaling the product with a granular approach. If I apply it in a corporate environment, what can I do with it? And if I decide to take IBM Integration Bus, can I fulfill everything I know needs to be done, including what will come up? For example, if we've got a new feature we've never heard about, will we be able to use it? The answer is yes. The multi-approach and the multi-capabilities are valuable.

The solution needs instruction or guidance. While you're building, without referring back to training, you should get more guidance from the solution towards the next step. From an analyst's perspective, where you get stuck is not the system. If a team has been trained on the solution and they get stuck, it's because they don't know the next thing to do. When you get stuck, the solution should tell you, "You need to do XYZ to not be stuck." The solution should have fulfillment guidance.

I'm an analyst. I've been working with the product for the last ten years, on and off.

Once the solution is set up, it's solid. We don't have to worry about stability.

The solution is scalable. The bus is being used. The actual systems that we integrate are not even IBM. The legacy systems might have come on there, but it's irrelevant. Our integration team has 15 members. A CIO manages the solution. The integration team comprises two teams of six, with a senior manager and an analyst.

The tech support could be better. Their knowledge is not a problem, but usually, they get stuck and escalate it. And since I need to work on something else, they drop the ball.

The initial setup is complex. It took too long to deploy.

I have seen an ROI. The main reason is that it's not IBM's product, it's their organization. IBM is always in it for the long run. There are too many other guys with sizable products who have come up in the last seven or eight years in India and are not in it for the long run. If I were a corporate that had already been around for 25-plus years, I wouldn't even think about going elsewhere. We don't get an immediate ROI. Besides, we don't use an IBM product for that reason. The ROI comes in when you have worked with it on a ten-year plan. That is where the power comes in. Through teamwork, where there are people who know it, and you get very skilled analysts who understand all the ins and outs of the solution. You don't get that on the other side, and that's where the value lies.

What I understand from the finance team is that IBM is expensive. Besides, the real cost is not in the license. It's in the deployment because of the skills input.

We sometimes get stuck in the managed energy of the integration. Some staff come from different countries, and sometimes there's a language barrier. It's not always a hundred percent clear what's required, and then there are too many options within the framework that can go wrong. The solution then requires a systems specialist to pull the process straight again. The downside is the specific knowledge required to do that. And when, as an analyst, you have an overview of the process and ask, "Why is it stuck?" And then you need to dig into details when the system should unequivocally tell you where the problem is. Is it the function? Is it debugging? And when guys tell me that the XYZ programming team hasn't delivered, I should instantly be able to see in the system what the issue is. However, once the solution is set up, it's solid.

I rate IBM Integration Bus an eight out of ten. I've just done a comparative analysis. Regarding capability, the IBM Integration Bus is an eight or a nine.

Most of my clients operate on-prem. The installation is not easy enough with the setup and everything behind it. Off-prem on the cloud is much better for us, and the libraries are much bigger. But it doesn't have the granularity that IBM offers.

It plays the integration role between different systems in banks and telecommunication. In my case, the integration uses connection protocol to, like, servers, the MQ. It also involves sometimes consuming patch files and constructing different calls to different backends, collecting the result, and sending it to the callers. 

I really like SQL integration nodes, HTTP nodes, event handling, event monitoring, the performance of the solution. 

I can't say that there is any improvement I’m looking for. I’m new and haven’t connected with all features. For all drawbacks that were in the old version, I think they have been solved. 

The scalability needs improvement.

I have been using the solution for eight-nine years.

It is a stable solution.

It’s a solution that requires large, and heavy integration. which is used on a large scale in large-scale companies.

The support team is efficient,

supportive and provide reasonable support by mail.

Positive

I was working as an integration partner with Duo Java using GMSQ and GMS knowledge. But I didn’t use specific integration products.

However, with IBM, I am using IBM Business Process Manager, Message Brokers, and IBM App Connect Enterprise.

It’s not a task for a fresh and new learner. You still have to have some kind of experience working on Linux machines, as it is good for working with command lines. Because I believe deployment using command lines and scripts will be faster and more efficient than using GUI for the IBM IB.

If the command goes time out while deploying, you have to work closely with the engine and maybe have to cancel the process or make some changes on the file, or system points to complete your deployment.

For small companies, First of all, there are a lot of free products that could be used for integration. It can use the cloud or new implementation in the past.

But if the tool is IBM, the official box in your company, you can make your submission and also publish the cloud to the work file.

But let’s say, if you are working with premises, then you have to buy a reasonable main full support and gain experience with your product.

For the overall rating, I will give it eight point five out of ten.

You must have some experience with Linux, or SAP or have a technician using IBM products so he can give you guidance for leadership for basic scalable

and tuned solution.

You can also make your configuration using all the content and rules of IBM Integration Manual and it will give you the best performance and the most efficient way.

The solution is a beneficial tool for integration purposes. It allows the integration of multiple systems irrespective of their format and type of connectors. Using it, we don't have to convert systems into different platforms such as JSON, XML, CSV, Excel, etc.

The solution's integration with Cloud Pak components could be better. Also, it needs improvement in terms of microservices.

I have been using the solution for 16 years.

I rate the solution's stability nine and a half out of ten.

The solution is scalable for enterprises as well as medium and small businesses. It is cost-effective and depends on the number of servers. Additionally, it helps integrate multiple backend systems.

I rate its scalability nine and a half out of ten.

When encountering difficulties, we raise the PMR to the solution's technical support team. Its response time might vary sometimes. Although, it is excellent as we have been receiving 24/7 support for the last six to seven years.

The solution's initial setup process is easy as I have experience working with six versions of it. We have deployed it on the cloud and have some of its components on-premises.

I rate the solution's pricing a one out of ten. It is expensive.

The solution works better than MuleSoft, Dell, WSO2, etc. Also, it is highly effective when integrated with an old legacy system in the EDI format using WTX, a mapping tool, compared to other solutions.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use IBM Integration Bus for document conversions.

We decided to move away from IBM Integration Bus for IT technical refreshments.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for ten years.

IBM Integration Bus is a stable solution.

I rate IBM Integration Bus a nine out of ten for stability.

IBM Integration Bus is a scalable solution.

I rate IBM Integration Bus an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

I rate the solution’s technical support an eight or nine out of ten.

Overall, I rate IBM Integration Bus a nine out of ten.

We use external integration with other entities and solutions outside of the enterprise.

The system's stability is the most valuable feature. Developing the integration is simple.

Recently, there was a lot of instability when selecting the solution they needed for testing. They said that the last one was the one that they enrolled. It's good, and it has good features. Nevertheless, I haven't tried to get it.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for ten years. 

The solution has been working since 2014. 

The scalability is a ten out of ten. Other competitors need to fix their solutions.

The solution's stability is ready to meet any business requirements you need. You can scale downtime, and you can have a container license that you can use with the product for free. This provides an advantage because with competitors, you would need to buy a container license.

They used to have traditional deployment nodes. Now it should be considered, but the customer needs to pay for the platform's cluster. With IBM, you have the Veritas and OpenShift licenses for three Autologics Veritas. 

The setup depends on the environment because this solution can fail when being fused. So it depends on the implementation. 

The containerization and the mobility of the setup for the personalization is implemented on top of the chip's head which comes for free with the product. Most of the middleware comes with a containerization option and deployment portal.

It needs more time to implement and set up the clusters for the data feature. When you implement it, it gives you host availability to expand and add more resources without the system interaction. There are two days of extra optimization for the cluster and it is very responsive. It gives you more scalability when the system is integrated. 

The price is reasonable considering the features we receive.

IBM Bus can't compete with other competitors. For Bus, you are banking on an enterprise solution. This is a lot of small and open-source software. 

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

We work with multiple customers, and this is one of the tools we use to help them with integration.

I like the API lead integration, which is more focused, and I also like real-time integration.

The price could be better. It would also be better if they simplified the code.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for more than 15 years.

IBM Integration Bus is a stable solution.

On a scale from one ten, I would give stability a nine.

IBM Integration Bus is a scalable solution. We have about 1000 users and 30 applications.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability an eight.

IBM's technical support is pretty good. They are very quick to respond once we raise a PMR with them.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. We already have a CI/CD pipeline in place. We just have to create the images, and then automation takes over and deploys it quickly.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the initial setup a nine.

We deployed this solution. We have two to three people who do this.

IBM Integration Bus is expensive. There are cheaper products in the marketplace.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the pricing a two. 

I would recommend this product as it's an IBM product. However, it all depends on the use case. If it's heavy machine-based transactions, I recommend IBM Integration Bus. But if it's API-based, I would recommend another solution.

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

We are using IBM Integration Bus as a messaging solution for our customers. They have legacy systems. Some are MQ systems, file-based systems, app-based systems, and ERP systems. We place it in the middle of integrations. One system sends messages or communicates to another system written by us.

I am into microservices using Java Spring Boot, but if we are using legacy systems, IBM Integration Bus is very good for them. They have their own computational logic called EC12, their own proprietary language. You can do any kind of complex logic and can implement other ESVs that I have seen.

IBM Integration Bus can improve JSON Schema validations. We don't have any kind of nodes that can support that kind of validation. If we want to containerize it by means of the docker's containers in the clouds, we are not able to manage it very well.

In a future update, IBM Integration Bus could add better API management. It only supports Swagger at this time.

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

IBM Integration Bus sometimes hangs but the IBM App Connect Enterprise successor version is a lot better.

IBM Integration Bus scalability depends. The scalable of the on-premise version is difficult to scale. For example, if you're using the file processing that can be locked on the files and there is an increase in the number of threads there is some limit. The cloud version is not the same, by using a container, we can scale up to any extreme level. That kind of scalable is not there in the on-premise version.

We have 10 to 15 people using the solution.

I never interacted with IBM for technical support. However, my clients have and they have had a good experience.

I have not worked with other solutions similar to IBM Integration Bus.

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus version 7 was complex, but the 10 and 11 versions were not difficult. We are using IBM App Connect Enterprise, the successor version of the IBM Integration Bus. IBM Integration Bus no longer exists, but the installation was quite easy. This is a single-step installation. The installation can take approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

The price of the IBM Integration Bus is expensive. If you compare the price to the cloud version you can purchase what you need but the on-premise version price is flat.

We evaluated other solutions.

In the modern integrations in the EPAs world, IBM Integration Bus is not well fitted, because if we have legacy systems, it is fine, but if you want to manage the EPA, govern the EPA to allow people to choose the different platforms, such as the cloud platform, Mule CloudHub I would not recommend it. For the legacy integrations, I can recommend this solution.

I rate IBM Integration Bus an eight out of ten.