IBM MQ Reviews

It doesn't lose transactions, it's fast, and it runs on every platform.

The benefits are the same as the most valuable features. Close coupling between different domains, which reduces your total cost of ownership by not inter-tweaking everything.

For me, there are no areas with room for improvement. We are happy like it is. I don't think we have any special additional needs. I think it does what it's supposed to do and it caters to the requirements we have at this moment.

We would actually like some dashboard improvements, because we've set up some manual dashboarding. We use other tools to monitor MQ. But, if that would be a part of MQ, then we're looking at a TCO reduction again. So it would be interesting if we could get rid of these additional tools.

For me, the management is lacking. It's doable, but it's not graphical. Almost everything you need to do in command line mode. It's pretty technical.

There is no downtime. It is very stable.

We have no problems with scalability. It scales all the way around.

We have used technical support. For MQ, it's very good, compared to other products.

We didn’t have a previous solution. There was a new requirement to handle asynchronous transactions, and MQ seemed to be the best solution at that moment.

I was involved in the setup of the distributive systems. It was straightforward.

We did't look at other vendors, because, at that moment, IBM was our preferred partner, and still is, so we first looked at the IBM solution.

Just do it.

The scalability of the environment is the most valuable feature. We also like the speed and the manageability of this tool.

It keeps all of our large systems interconnected, so the MQ is at the base of all of our system integration.

I would like better control over the depth of messages that go in there from all the learning and notifications, better management tools around queue depth, queue issue, that kind of stuff. If things are backing up in the queue, getting better at learning from a dashboard of how the whole ecosystem of MQ is running, that'd be really nice. Because we're using a third party to get that now.

Stability is very strong. We haven't had any issues.

We really like the multi-channel queue manager that allows us to have different entries into the queue and manage that traffic; kind of splitting it out. That gives us an immense amount of scale as we add new applications.

We have used support. They are okay. Opening a PMR is a pain in the neck. When you're in a critical event, you don't want to go open up a web ticket. You want to get somebody on the phone, it could fix the problem now. We get that it all goes with the support level and we are pretty high.

We had a mainframe that had MQ associated to it, so we just kept it going forward.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Study hard, and implement small, and then scale.

Responsiveness, the tool, and price are what I look for in a vendor.

The most valuable features are the integration services in the company.

We are using it for the APIs, beepers, and beeper processes in order to integrate data into the source systems.

Actually, I am looking to move to the cloud. We need to integrate the databases that are in the company and provide API integration services in the cloud. Thus, we would like to see more cloud integration.

This product has very strong stability. We don't have interruption problems.

The technical support is very good. We have a partner in Puerto Rico. They have people with extensive experience, and they help us.

We looked at the Microsoft solutions, as well. However, IBM was most important.

We look at all the tools and then we compare them to WebSphere. We can then understand which tool we need.

IBM is a leader, but there is always room for improvement.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor include:

• The support that they provide
• The knowledge they have of the tools that we need to purchase

It can be managed from a web page.

The benefits of the new version are greater ease of use and management of MQ.

At a recent industry event, I discovered that the future version of MQ would provide more web services, such as API, and the ability to manage MQ using a web application. Those will be very good improvements to the product.

I can say that it's stable.

It is scalable, but not easily.

I have opened a ticket. Technical support are not bad.

Relationship is the most important element when looking for a vendor.

I was not involved with the initial setup. We usually get in touch with them in order to solve the issues.

Just go ahead and do it.

It makes it very easy to update and define queues, look at messages, queue depth, and queue properties. We use it in conjunction with the integration bus for testing and development.

It's very handy, graphical, easy to use, pretty, and intuitive.

I'm not sure. I've been working with it for about two years, so I'm still learning, but I like it. I'm pretty satisfied with it. But, the initial launch of the application seems to be pretty slow. Once you're inside, it does respond pretty quickly; it's just that initial load that takes a while.

I've had very good luck with it. It's a little bit slow when you open it, but once you're inside, it seems to respond very well.

It handles everything we have. We have multiple queue managers and broker managers running on different servers, and you can connect to multiples of them. I haven't had any issues with doing that.

I haven't used technical support, but my group has.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

I would advise them to go ahead and use it.

When looking for a vendor, I look at stability, their prevalence in the market, other companies using it, and the ability to get support for the product.

The messaging and the security are the most valuable features. We can find everything in queue, because that's the basis of our business.

It is hard to say how it has improved the way my organization functions because it's been here since the beginning. I'm not sure I have an answer.

Right now, I can't think of anything that needs improving.

Stability is great. We have not had any issues recently. Version 7 was a tough one, but since then, they've improved it.

Scalability is great. We use it on Unix, Linux, z/OS, Windows, everything.

We use technical support, the PMR, all the time and it's great. It's usually really quick.

It was too long ago; it wasn't my decision to switch.

I was involved with the initial setup. It wasn't quite straightforward because the original versions used CICS and that was a little tricky sometimes. But, then they went and made the agent as part of the package of using the CICS.

Go for MQ. It will solve your problems for interconnectivity and just whatever you need to do; scalability wherever you need to go.

The number one thing is it's pretty reliable with data integration. It gets done what we need to do; transport messages from source to destination.

It is the core component of what we do. We're using it to distribute messages from one platform to different multiple platforms.

We're moving to the next version. I really don't have anything I want improved. There are unknown bugs that we run across where we don't know where they are from, and the next fix pack will fix it.

Stability is pretty good, really. We have not had any downtime.

Scalability is good.

My colleagues have used technical support. I would say it's good.

I wasn't part of the decision to switch.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Use it.

I've used other solutions, but the most valuable features of this solution are the search capabilities, consolidating the data and searching through the data. I think that these are some of the key things.

For this organization, it was the first log management solution. So, it definitely gave us the ability to search through the data when we had events. We could search based on the identity of the person, or the machine, or the IP address. We could do a lot of different searches.

We could also do payload searches and depending on how much capacity you have, you can do quite a lot with it.

I want to see a three-dimensional perspective to the data. I don't want to see just an event perspective to the data. I want to be able to identify a user and within clicks, know the whole activity of the user. I don't want to see it in events. I want to see it in the relevant information.

There needs to be a little bit more of investment for enhancing the user interface. That is the main thing, i.e., to make it represent the state of the actual incident response and how you would troubleshoot an incident. It was a major position by IBM when they bought it. But, we see a lot of things being done around the Cognitive side, around the Watson side, but what we're not seeing growth in, is the actual tools interface and usability.

We wanted to be able to see seamless identification of log sources, seamless categorization, normalizing of log sources and seamless alerts. All those things that are required for solution maturing, it has to be able to take data and make sense of it by itself, without a lot of input. Those are the areas that they can really improve it.

It's been stable. Stability hasn't been a problem, as long as you have enough capacity. It's all about sizing it right for the size of your environment.

We drop packets every day. So depending on how our log volume increases or reduces, you see the impact on the packets being dropped.

We've used it and it hasn't been great. It didn't seem like we could get the answers we needed without having to use professional services. For a solution like this, there are little things like, how to tune it, how to upgrade it and that as a customer we don't feel the need to use professional services for. We want to be able to just find a document on how to upgrade and that has been difficult to find.

We didn't have a previous solution. We inherited it as part of another acquisition, of another purchase from IBM and then we scaled it up to meet our capacity.

I was involved in the setup process. We got the basic functionality working, which is not difficult. It's getting the full value out of this solution that was harder.

From an analytics perspective, it's a good tool but you have to have the resources to own it. It's not only about buying it, nor is it about the capacity, but somebody has to care and feed it. It's not one of those you put it in and you can walk away and just consume the data. If you don't care and feed it, you won't get what you need out of it.