Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

IBM MQ OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

IBM MQ is #1 ranked solution in top Business Activity Monitoring tools, top Message Queue Software, and top Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) tools. PeerSpot users give IBM MQ an average rating of 8.2 out of 10. IBM MQ is most commonly compared to Apache Kafka: IBM MQ vs Apache Kafka. IBM MQ is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 78% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a financial services firm, accounting for 32% of all views.
IBM MQ Buyer's Guide

Download the IBM MQ Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2022

What is IBM MQ?

    IBM MQ is a middleware product used to send or exchange messages across multiple platforms, including applications, systems, files, and services via MQs (messaging queues). This solution helps simplify the creation of business applications, and also makes them easier to maintain. IBM MQ is security-rich, has high performance, and provides a universal messaging backbone with robust connectivity. In addition, it also integrates easily with existing IT assets by using an SOA (service oriented architecture).

    IBM MQ can be deployed:

    • On-premises
    • In the cloud
    • Hybrid cloud

    IBM MQ supports the following APIs:

    • MQI (Message Queue Interface)
    • REST
    • .NET
    • MQTT
    • JMS
    • IBM MQ Light


    IBM MQ Features

    Some of the most powerful IBM MQ features include:

    • High availability
    • Stability and scalability
    • Flexible deployment options
    • Uniform clusters
    • Automated and intelligent workload balancing
    • Broad language, API, and messaging protocol support
    • Administrative features that simplify messaging management
    • Open standards development tools
    • Simple management tools

    IBM MQ Benefits

    Some of the benefits of using IBM MQ include:

    • Multi-style messaging: IBM MQ supports simple multi-style messaging, making it easy to connect diverse systems with support for message queuing, transactions, and more.

    • Reduced risk: With IBM MQ you will never lose a message, and messages are never delivered more than once.

    • Cloud-native: Because IBM MQ has a minimal infrastructure, it is suitable to be cloud-native, and therefore has the capability to always remain on.

    • Available anywhere: Using IBM MQ, you have access to secure messaging anywhere, at any time.

    • Secure: IBM MQ makes sure to keep your data safe by using TLS secured communications, providing access identity management, message-level security, and more measures to protect your information.

    • Easy for application programmers: To use IBM MQ, application programmers do not need to have any knowledge of communications programming.

    • Technical support: IBM MQ has a large user community and also provides support 24/7 as needed.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by IBM MQ users who are currently using the solution.

    PeerSpot user Sunil S., a manager at a financial services firm, explains that they never lose messages are never lost in transit, mentioning that he can store messages and forward them as required: "Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."

    Another PeerSpot reviewer, Luis L. who is a solutions director at Thesys Technologies, says that IBM MQ is a valuable solution and is "A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."

    The head of operations at a financial services firm notes that "I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, is easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use."

    In addition, a Software Engineer at a financial services firm praises the security benefits of it and states that “it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes."

IBM MQ was previously known as WebSphere MQ.

IBM MQ Customers

Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation

IBM MQ Video

IBM MQ Pricing Advice

What users are saying about IBM MQ pricing:
  • "Licensing for this software is on a yearly basis. The standard fee includes the maintenance and updates that are released periodically."
  • "You have to license per application installation and if you expand vertically or horizontally, you will be paying for more licenses. The licenses are approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a license, it can get expensive quite quickly."
  • "It is a licensed product. As compared to an open-source solution, such as RabbitMQ, it is obviously costly. If you're using IBM Message Broker, which is a licensed product, IBM MQ is included in the same license. You don't have to pay separately for IBM MQ. The license cost of IBM MQ is lesser than IBM Message Broker."
  • "I think it's pretty reasonable, but I'm not so too sure of the current pricing strategy from IBM. We use many bundled services, and most often, we go through a service provided by some other third-party implementation. So, I can't really give an honest opinion about that."
  • "The licensing fees are paid quarterly and they are expensive."
  • "IBM is expensive."
  • IBM MQ Reviews

    Filter by:
    Filter Reviews
    Industry
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Company Size
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Job Level
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Rating
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Considered
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Order by:
    Loading...
    • Date
    • Highest Rating
    • Lowest Rating
    • Review Length
    Search:
    Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
    Luis Lascano - PeerSpot reviewer
    Solutions Director at Thesys Technologies
    Real User
    Top 20
    Reliable and stable software with good integration but the file transfer process needs improvement
    Pros and Cons
    • "A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."
    • "Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."

    What is our primary use case?

    We're using the IBM MQ series in development, integration, UAT, and production areas.

    What is most valuable?

    What I found most valuable in this software is its reliability because messages that are sent into the queues are consumed by the other end of the connectivity. It has helped us maintain integration between two different systems, so that has been part of one of the layers of our architecture that communicates, for example, a back-end platform and back-end core system with a front-end platform. In our case, we are using the backend as a 224 banking system and the frontend we are using the Wall Street front office system. Those two systems are interconnected via the IBM MQ series.

    What needs improvement?

    An area for improvement for this software is that sometimes, messages are not consumed in the queues. We have seen queues where not all messages are emptied. That issue has been solved by our IBM team located in Spain, but we haven't received detailed technical information as to why those queues are not totally consumed. A probable reason could be some service and availability issue because of server updates in IBM MQ itself, or server updates related to the operating system, which in our case, we are using Red Hat Linux.

    I have seen a lot of problems with the file transfers, e.g. using FTP or SFTP or LFTP. Normally with all these kinds of transfers, they are not on a transaction boundary, meaning a transfer can fail during the execution. We are not certain why it hasn't reached the destination as these protocols are not transactional which you normally have in MQ messages. What I would like to see in the next release is a solution for the MQ file transfer. I saw some literature about it, but I am not sure if the feature is available, or if it will be easy to configure and maintain in the bank.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We've used IBM MQ within the last year. We've being using it on a continuous basis because it is the secure platform we have in our banking system.

    Buyer's Guide
    IBM MQ
    September 2022
    Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
    633,184 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    IBM MQ is very stable. It's the best server in terms of interconnectivity. The reliability that the MQ series has, I haven't seen in other servers that are also based in MQ.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    My impression of the scalability of this software: We started with a very easy installation where we have very few queues defined. Then, we had a huge integration where we applied, pulled, and observed that the scalability is very straightforward. We also found an easy way: making an active-passive configuration automatic. For example: If you have one active server going down, the passive server is switched on automatically, without us needing to do anything from our end, which means the active-passive configuration works properly.

    How are customer service and support?

    I haven't been involved in contacting IBM's support, but in general, we didn't have any vendor issues.

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup for this software was very complex, particularly with the integration between the two systems I was talking about earlier: on the core backend and on the user frontend that is the Wall Street system. It has a lot of different types of flows, and all those flows are defined into the server that is called TTI that is working under the MQ series. That contains a lot of complexities because the vendor of the front-end system has included in the MQ side the server functionality for the application, instead of doing it directly in either the backend or the frontend. This means the MQ part is also helping with the logic for processing messages, and the logic is maintained in a layer: the MQ layer in the server that's called TTI. This is the first time we have faced such complexity, but regarding the MQ as is, meaning the vanilla version, it is quite straightforward. That server works the proper way.

    What about the implementation team?

    We used consultants for the implementation and those were consultants from the vendor who were already experienced in the TTI server.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The licensing for this software is on a yearly basis, but the bank is holding just one license for the entire bank: a corporate license. As for additional costs, it's a standard fee that includes the maintenance and updates that are released periodically.

    What other advice do I have?

    I didn't download Active MQ and IBM MQ. I was checking on the website because I wanted to know certain functionalities about those two series. So what I downloaded was the literature about their functionalities.

    Regarding IBM products, the only one that I was working with was the MQ series.

    All products in our organization, particularly the banking systems are on-premise. We are not yet ready to do cloud deployment.

    Deployment of this software in the TTI part took three months. For the core part, deployment took approximately one month. The time that it took for deployment is also associated with the number of servers that we had.

    We have four groups: development, integration, user acceptance test, and production. In each of these groups, they have their own MQ servers. We started with the installation for the development group, then going forward and solving the issues we found at the beginning with the installation instructions. We continued with the other areas until we reached the production server recently, back in mid-October.

    We currently have 200 users of this software.

    Deployment of the IBM MQ at core requires two people in our organization, but for the personalized application or the customized one, we have 10 people.

    I'm rating this software a five because it is quite expensive and complex. I'm giving this a five over ten rating not just because it runs, but because it has a lot of features.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Head Of Operations at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    Top 20
    Highly scalable, easy to use, and entirely robust
    Pros and Cons
    • "I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use."
    • "Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues."

    What is our primary use case?

    We have two different use cases for this solution. We use it for the interactive interconnectivity between clients into the cloud and applications communicating within our enterprise software.

    What is most valuable?

    I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use.

    What needs improvement?

    Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues.

    It is intensive to maintain and train people to use the application. There has to be a certain amount of education going into the developers, as well as the infrastructure staff. This could be improved.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using IBM MQ for approximately 20 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The solution is very stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We have found the solution is highly scalable. It is very easy to scale horizontally, we can scale across and make another instance of the application if we need to.

    We have approximately 2,000 to 10,000 are using this solution in my organization.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    The quality of service can vary depending on the level of support for different issues. If it is on an issue with what IBM does within their cloud that they control as an ASP it can be somewhat complicated because it is not visible to us. They only support and run the model for us. They will do the updates, manage, and make sure everything is working, it is an effective service but if we have an issue, we do not get that much of a response from them. However, when it is on-premise with us on our side and we talk directly to IBM and they support us fully for the application. 

    How was the initial setup?

    The installation can be fairly simple, but when changes or modifications are necessary within the system for the implementation it can be a bit difficult. We standardize a lot of the process whether it is using Jenkins or Pipelines, or another solution to make it as simple as possible. However, when we make changes and more errors and configuration problems come up, it can be quite difficult to narrow down those problems. Generally, we automate most of this part which has limited the impact but the process could be improved.

    Since we automate a lot of the deployment elements I am not sure the breakdown of how long it takes for each part, but typically all together it takes approximately half a day.

    What about the implementation team?

    We do the implementation of the solution.

    This solution is a message exchanges system for queuing messages. The messages come in and if they are rejected or if they fail to be received, they sometimes fall into something that is called a dead letter queue, queues that are dead, or queues that are ineffective. Those have to be maintained and monitored at all times. There is quite a lot of attention needed. It is extremely critical and the robustness is extreme when it is on the edge. When it is in the enterprise is not that bad, but if it is on the edge, outward-facing to the client, we do a lot of work to maintain and ensure that it is working at all times.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    You have to license per application installation and if you expand vertically or horizontally, you will be paying for more licenses. The licenses are approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a license, it can get expensive quite quickly.

    We maintain and support a lot of applications across a wide enterprise. Therefore the cost of licenses increases with each individual implementation of a client because we have to pay for licenses. We are looking for an alternative solution to reduce costs by going to an open-source messaging system because we do not need the robustness of IBM MQ.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I have evaluated Rabbit MQ.

    What other advice do I have?

    If you want a robust enterprise application that you know is going to be around that you can trust and you are very comfortable with the concept that you are going to pay for that stability and robustness, then IBM MQ is the best choice. If you are on a lighter throughput or you do not need to worry about the robustness as much then Rabbit MQ could be the better choice. It is a fairly stable application, and it works very well but you do not have that industrialization and long-term code benefit that you receive from IBM WebSphere. If your use case and budget fit then this solution would be a great choice.

    We have used the application for a long time. I understand it, how it works and therefore I feel comfortable with it. From a pure usage standpoint, it is great. It will handle anything, but you have to be willing to understand that you are getting into something you cannot go backward on very easily. You cannot easily swap another suitable or similar application out without a lot of work involved. You have to be very careful what you are trying to accomplish with your software.

    I rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    IBM MQ
    September 2022
    Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
    633,184 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Software Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Highly secure but there sometimes are complicated network issues
    Pros and Cons
    • "IBM is still adding some features and coding some other systems on the security end. However, it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes."
    • "There are many complications with IBM MQ servers."

    What is our primary use case?

    We provide a channel that we call "the link," so we are distributors of numbering services. These links are connected to a simulator, for example, when MQ is related to some application or the scanner. It's a synchronized communication where we first check two-step authentication. So first, we start with the authentication. In the second step, the MQ server provides the connection. Then the system decides if it can make the connection or not. For example, if I'm uploading something, it will check one cluster, not the other five. So next time, I'm just checking to see if we can connect. After that, the other side is also checking. Those clusters are physical connectivity clusters.

    We are sending everything. The partner and we create an acknowledgment number and check to see if everything is fine or not. Once everything checks out and we have verified the person with our partner, we establish the connection, sending a message. Then we are also checking the permissions and format. Sometimes there are some errors, so we have to check the login acknowledgment number and figure out what the error code means. We are handling everything for the project, from the code and deployment to support. We are handling everything through an RFP repository. So from there, we are handling every version released in the last two years. Every year, we upgrade according to the guidelines.

    What is most valuable?

    There are so many good things with IBM MQ networking. So many complicated issues arise when you're trying to configure your network, and MQ helps by providing the clustering. In our project architecture, we have a cluster that distinguishes between major requests from applications. There is also a centralized cluster. Let's suppose 10 applications are connecting to that cluster. In each application, we add differently. 

    If I need to add multiple features to the centralized cluster, we can create another cluster. From there, the GMG is connected. Also, clusters can provide a backup. So suppose this solution faces some failure, like a power outage, MQ can automatically redistribute the load to other servers. 

    We are using the synchronizer and another module in our product. We are stepping the connection from the IBM channel. After that, we can send or receive any message. This is synchronizing. We are handling the clustering, and we have created a design for how the NP is built with the partner.

    IBM is still adding some features and coding some other systems on the security end. However, it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes.

    What needs improvement?

    Sometimes, there are network issues, which means more applications are connected to those messages, so I would like to fix that. For example, suppose there's a new network, and I want to add virtual memory to address a network issue within the cluster. So there is a network issue that needs to be resolved from the cluster. So I need to add the permissions for that particular team or particular time. There are many complications with IBM MQ servers.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using IBM MQ since last year.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    IBM MQ is reliable.

    How are customer service and support?

    We don't use IBM support much. Sometimes partners will come to us with questions, so we just guide them. Sometimes, you need an MQ person because they have access. We guide the customer to ask this question. You have to ask the MQ entity or the entry person. They will help you. And we are not writing any protocols because a separate team does that. And also, if anything goes wrong with the MQ product, then IBM will address that.

    How was the initial setup?

    From a coding perspective, it's a straightforward process. There are no complications. We cannot directly access the IBM server because there is a separate team assigned to do some security and get some code of conduct from the MQ team. They are handling the MQ server. So we ask them to create these entry servers to discuss that. And also, we are defining everything. We are responsible for handling invalid queries. So they recreate a wrong question or wrong to them. So, whatever is an appropriate question. 

    In terms of maintenance, there are three reasons you'll get a maintenance window. On the maintenance window, we are just restarting the epicenter. Nothing else. If it requires any patching or updates, we perform those. But you don't have to restart the application.  The epicenter typically runs continuously.

    What other advice do I have?

    I rate IBM MQ seven out of 10. It's a good option for anything banking-related where you need secure communications. There are some other similar products out there, but I'm not about other servers. But I'm aware of our BME. So if you're doing banking or anything that requires secure channels, I would recommend IBM MQ. 

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Prashant Powar - PeerSpot reviewer
    Senior Middleware Administrator at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    A reliable and scalable solution that comes with advanced features and good support
    Pros and Cons
    • "Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
    • "It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are all using the file transfer or MQ FTP feature. We are also it for distributed queuing and clustering.

    What is most valuable?

    Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable.

    For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors.

    What needs improvement?

    It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been working with IBM MQ for the last 14 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    IBM MQ is a very stable product. You also get very good support from IBM, but we rarely have to go back to IBM for support.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It has good scalability. We are using point-to-point or distributed MQ, so we are not that much worried about scalability. If we need scalability, we can use MQ clustering for a high workload. We can configure it for resiliency and high availability by using the multi-instance queue managers. If one of the nodes goes down, it will automatically failover to the other node. It also provides some advanced high availability features on top of the multi-instance queue manager.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    You get very good support from IBM. If you are facing any issues that are tricky or there is any code issue where FDC files are being generated and you're not sure what is happening, you can open a case with them. They will help you with that. They are very efficient.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup is very simple. The installation doesn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes.

    What about the implementation team?

    I have installed it myself. I'm also doing maintenance, patching, upgrades, and migrations. We have a team of 11 administrators who are working on IBM MQ. They use it on a daily basis.

    The upgrade process is simple. I refer to IBM Information Center. As a part of the preparation, I go through all the steps that they have given. I correlate the information with the infrastructure that we have. According to the current infrastructure, we document the requirements, and after that, we do the upgrade. We couldn't do in-place migration or upgrade, so we had to do parallelization. We took a new server, installed the new version, created a new queue manager, and migrated all the services.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It is a licensed product. As compared to an open-source solution, such as RabbitMQ, it is obviously costly. If you're using IBM Message Broker, which is a licensed product, IBM MQ is included in the same license. You don't have to pay separately for IBM MQ. The license cost of IBM MQ is lesser than IBM Message Broker.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I have been asked to do a PoC for one of our use cases, and we used RabbitMQ for that. They wanted to assess RabbitMQ in comparison to IBM MQ.

    Obviously, IBM MQ has more advantages when compared with RabbitMQ. The main reason for doing this PoC was that RabbitMQ is an open-source product. Cost-wise, it looks effective, but from a technical point of view as well as from the point of view of scalability and features, IBM MQ is very enriched.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would definitely recommend this solution, but it also depends on your needs and business case. I have been using IBM MQ for the last 14 years. I am very much used to it, and I like it. I have used other products too, such as RabbitMQ and Kafka, but not that much. 

    I would rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Enterprise Architect at a energy/utilities company with 501-1,000 employees
    Real User
    Versatile, easy to implement, and good at doing what it does
    Pros and Cons
    • "The methodology and the way in which the platform has been produced as a standard is most valuable. There are so many different versions of it now, but the actual basic functionality and the simplicity of it have made it far easier to be implemented in so many different instances. When I worked with the OS/2 or PS/2 machine environment, the messaging mechanisms were based upon IBM MQ. It is so versatile, which is the main reason that I'm a fan of it."
    • "There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."

    What is most valuable?

    The methodology and the way in which the platform has been produced as a standard is most valuable. There are so many different versions of it now, but the actual basic functionality and the simplicity of it have made it far easier to be implemented in so many different instances. When I worked with the OS/2 or PS/2 machine environment, the messaging mechanisms were based upon IBM MQ. It is so versatile, which is the main reason that I'm a fan of it. 

    What needs improvement?

    There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things. As a result, rather than following the recommendations and the standard that was within the IBM MQ implementation, some suppliers say that we need the ability to have longer message lengths than they've implemented, but that's the way it is. Other than that, I'm very pleased with it as it is. It is good at doing what it does. I love the actual implementation, and I've used it a lot.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using IBM MQ since it came along. We've got a lot of different platforms. We have IBM MQ. We have had BizTalk, IMMQ, WebSphere, and WebLogic platforms, but we're moving very much into the cloud.

    How are customer service and support?

    The support that we have goes through third-party vendors. In the past, their support has been very good, but I can't say anything about it today. About 15 years ago, in the companies I was working with as a consultant, we had very good support. We were working very closely with IBM, and IBM implemented the PS/2 and OS/2 operating system together with Microsoft. The implementation there in terms of the connectivity was an implementation of the IBM MQ series in the OS/2 operating system, PS/2 environment. The support we received for that work back in the late '80s was fantastic.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup is usually left to other people to do. I've never actually done the installation and setup of it myself. It has been other people with a bit more deep technical knowledge who have done the implementation and actual installations. It was a very long time ago when I received the first set of CDs where we were going to be doing the installation of it, but I don't have that deep technical knowledge of the implementation as such.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I think it's pretty reasonable, but I'm not so too sure of the current pricing strategy from IBM. We use many bundled services, and most often, we go through a service provided by some other third-party implementation. So, I can't really give an honest opinion about that.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would rate IBM MQ an eight out of 10.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Lead Talent Acquisition Specialist at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Simple to deploy, low maintenance, and technical support is always reachable
    Pros and Cons
    • "This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
    • "The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."

    What is our primary use case?

    Our use cases for IBM MQ involve share markets.

    In this organization, we are not using many of the features because we have a very small infrastructure. In my previous organizations, I used many of the components including AMS. However, here, we are just using it as a messaging solution and not any of the other components.

    What is most valuable?

    The MQ appliance has very good performance.

    What needs improvement?

    The user interface should be easier to use.

    The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization. These kinds of features would be really helpful when we have a large infrastructure. Right now, this limits us from using the product.

    In general, the user interface should be more catchy, to entice users.

    IBM should promote the use of the MQ appliance because the speed and performance are superior when compared to traditional ways of using the product.

    If IBM were to release as least some limited features for MQ as open-source, then it would be great because people will migrate to this solution instead of choosing open-source products like Apache Kafka or RabbitMQ.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been working with IBM MQ for almost 13 years across different organizations. I began working with version 5.3 and am currently using version 9.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The stability is absolutely perfect when it is running on AIX. However, I have experienced some issues with certain Linux distributions. With AIX, I have not had any problems with IBM MQ. With other flavors of Linux, there is some instability whereby the MQ configuration parameters are not giving the proper information. From this, I have concluded that the stability of MQ depends on the Linux distribution that it is running on.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The number of users in my current organization is six or seven. This is the number of applications that we have. This is not an extensive use of the product but we do plan to increase usage in the future.

    In my previous organization, our use was more extensive. We had between 700 and 710 users.

    This product scales and the number of users depends on the industry, as well as the financial strengths that the organization has.

    How are customer service and support?

    The technical support from IBM is always reachable.

    Internally, we provide technical support to our users. This is possible because our team is only six or seven users.

    How was the initial setup?

    This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy.

    What about the implementation team?

    Limited staff is required to maintain this solution because of its stability.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The licensing fees are paid quarterly and they are expensive. This is something that I have heard from all of the organizations that I have worked with.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I have evaluated Apache Kafka and RabbitMQ because of the open-source features and benefits. The open-source aspect is an advantage. I have found that not many users choose IBM MQ, even though it is stable, because of financial constraints.

    If IBM were to release MQ or at least some limited version as open-source, it would become more popular. People would choose it instead of implementing other products, or other streaming solutions. This is what people are trying to do with DevOps.

    IBM MQ is much more stable than these other products, although the rest of them work well with cloud providers such as AWS.

    What other advice do I have?

    Overall, this is a good product. The only thing that I found complex was to build the user interface with the latest versions of IBM MQ. It was a little bit tricky to do.

    I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Jitendra Jethwa - PeerSpot reviewer
    Websphere MQ Specialist at a maritime company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 5Leaderboard
    Easy to use, stable, and offers great technical support
    Pros and Cons
    • "The solution can scale well."
    • "There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily."

    What is our primary use case?

    The solution is primarily used for business transactions. It's used for financial transactions as well. Those are the two main use cases. We exchange information with our in-house applications before we supply information to our customers and so on.

    What is most valuable?

    The messaging queue is the main feature that we use. We use other products like publish and subscribe, which are very useful to us as well. 

    We can share data and other people can subscribe to it. 

    The solution is very stable.

    The solution can scale well.

    We've found the installation to be extremely straightforward and well laid out.

    It's easy to maintain, easy to administer, and easy to see what's going on there. Overall, it's a good product.

    Technical support is excellent.

    What needs improvement?

    The way the solution provides us with the product and the way we use it gives us what we need. We don't actually have any issues with it. 

    There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily. However, apart from that, it works well. 

    The pricing is definitely could be cheaper. Also, the support model, even though it's very good, could be cheaper as well.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been working with the solution for about 25 years or so. It's a good amount of time. I have a lot of experience.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The product offers good stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The product scales well. If a company would like to expand, it can do so. It's not a problem.

    It's hard to say who exactly is working on the solution at this time. We have around 30,000 people working on it, in some way or the other.

    We've got to keep using it for the foreseeable future. We don't see any reason not to as it provides us with a good solid platform. We have no reason to change anything.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    We have found the technical support to be very good. They are responsive and knowledgeable. They are also very friendly. We are satisfied with the level of support we receive. As soon as we raise any issue, they get in touch with us and sort it out. It's great.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We did not previously use a different solution. We started with IBM MQ a long, long time ago and we stuck with it.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup is not complex. It is a very simple installation. I've been provided with instructions that make the whole solution extremely easy to download and install.

    The entire process is very fast. It only takes about 30 minutes to deploy.

    We have different departments that can handle deployments. We have about 100 people on our team that can handle this type of assignment.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    This is a licensed product. We do pay for it.

    While, of course, it would be better if it was cheaper, the service they provide with it, including the maintenance facilities they provide, is very good. We're quite happy. Most people have to use what IBM provides, however, it could be a cheaper license.

    What other advice do I have?

    We're just a customer and an end-user.

    I'd recommend the solution to any organization.

    I'd rate it ten out of ten. It really provides everything we need.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Lead Software Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Stable and robust with proven technology, and they have good technical support
    Pros and Cons
    • "The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing."
    • "I would like to see message duplication included."

    What is our primary use case?

    The primary use case of this solution is for the general merchandising and retail market.

    How has it helped my organization?

    From the infrastructure point of view, it's a great improvement and it's more flexible to the latest hardware. Also, it is flexible for whatever is coming or whatever is available for on-premises and cloud integrations.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing.

    There has been a lot of improvement in architecture. It handles better with the new architecture such as Cloud, and Cloud-on-premises integrations.

    Also, how Kubernetes can be deployed is helpful.

    What needs improvement?

    I would like to see message duplication included. We don't have a mechanism for duplicating a message.

    There is a different model where you can have multiple subscribers and not publish the stored data to multiple subscribers. 

    Duplication is the most important for sending the same data for different applications.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using IBM MQ for 15 years.

    We are using 9.0.0.6 and in the process of upgrading to 9.02.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    In terms of stability, IBM has proven to be very rare. It's a very stable product.

    We test in very large volumes.

    We tested ActiveMQ and it's nowhere close to IMB MQ.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Scalability is an area that has improved a lot. The scalable data is different. 

    The way the cluster handles and cluster load balancing is different than what it used to be.

    Now with the uniform clusters, it's much better. There is a lot of competition especially with messaging. With streaming, people are using it for messaging also. 

    It's very flexible to scale.

    We have been using it for a long time. We have a team of 15 people who are using this solution. There are more than 5,000 integrations that are using this solution in all platforms, such as Mainframe, Windows, and Cloud environments.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Tech support is very good. I guess other support groups if someone is looking for ADP accounts it lacks but in general technical support is good.

    I would rate them a nine out of ten.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Previously, we did not use any other product. I am not familiar with other technologies.

    I'm learning and doing some experiments, but we have found a  product for the volume we have.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup is straightforward, it's easy.

    If someone knows its basic structure, it is easy, but the open-source is much easier than IBM MQ because you just have to install it and start working on it. With IBM MQ you have some installation procedures.

    The open-source version needs route access which could be security compliance and could be complex.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    IBM is expensive.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would recommend this solution and suggest you start using it if you have the budget. It's very stable and robust. It's a proven technology, so no one needs to worry about that.

    It all relies on the budget, that where all of the problems are. People want to use open-source, and businesses do not have a budget.

    It's a good product to use.

    I would rate IBM MQ a nine out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free IBM MQ Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
    Updated: September 2022
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free IBM MQ Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.