IBM MQ Reviews

We're a service provider. My company provides services to different clients that include financial institutions in the banking sector.

IBM MQ is used for queue messaging. I have to install and configure, the MQ features of listener channels, remote queues, and some transmit queues. We enable these as per customer requirements.

The solution offers very good features, including listener channels, remote queues, and transmit queues.

The solution is stable.

The initial setup isn't overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. 

Technical support is very good.

IBM MQ is not very user-friendly. MQ needs to redesign or add some sort of user-friendly interface in order to offer better performance.

This is a very old solution. Nowadays, some other products are designed to be much more user-friendly as compared to IBM MQ. 

The product needs better administration.

I've been working with the solution for three years. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We've found the technical support to be very good. they tend to match the severity level of the situation. We're quite happy with the way they respond.

While the initial setup is not overly difficult, the user interface is not very user-friendly. 

I cannot speak to the pricing of the product. I can't say if it's overly expensive or reasonably priced as I don't deal directly with licensing. 

We are an IBM partner. 

I'd rate the soluton at an eight out of ten. For the most part, I've been pretty happy with its capabilities. 

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

Originally, we were doing this in-house, and it was a huge effort. Now, with IBM MQ, we have increased our performance, and it performs really well. The queuing system, given the size of information, is helpful.

The on-premise installation is very valuable to us, since we are working with a lot of companies which have a very high degree of compliance.

I will say that, okay, we are coming from a long history as an IT company, and we have almost done queuing systems with other solutions. Moving from that implementation to something that is out-of-the-box, and the rave reviews, it was a great asset already. We didn’t have to worry about all the specific configuration, or installation of our own queue, and queuing system, and the brokers, and so on. It was some things a little bit out-of-the-box, that's why we like it.

I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop. We choose a new feature, we would choose something that is a little more … even more out-of-the-box, and gives me the possibility to configure directly where the messages should go, instead.

Also, the IBM MQ, it doesn’t really have a connector.

I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially.

We had some load tests, and actually it was quite straightforward to make a scale actually. I believe we are satisfied with it. We are talking about 100,000 users, and it was performing well. So I don't know if it scales well when we talk about millions. But, for our needs, it scales nicely.

We do not have a direct contact with them. We have a desk line with them, and we have some sort of agreement. They treat us very well.

I do not get involved with the setup of the solutions. But, my team member was very happy with it, and said it was quite easy to install. 

We always must consider:

• Reliability is a key requirement
• There should be a roadmap
• Support
• Development

We also considered Apache Kafka as a solution. The main difference is that Kafka is an open-source platform. 

Helping us with speed to market; that's really what IBM's solutions are helping us do.

Again, we're trying to streamline factory-based speed to market. So, it's improved that.

The solution is very stable.

Scalability is there, as well.

We always rely on technical support; it is very good.

We were previously using a different solution.

There were other vendors that were on our shortlist. We work with other vendors as well, but IBM is one of our premier vendors. The reason why we chose IBM was because of its stability and they've got the products that we are looking for. They partner with most of the partners that we're dealing with.

When selecting a vendor, the most important criteria are it's stability, helping us to grow forward and how can they help us get to the market faster.

Looking at this is important for any company that's looking for a solution. So, this needs to be one of your primary players.

Our use case for MQ is for unlimited processing. I'm a solutions architect. 

This is a good and stable product, It assists with our applications and has great message processing with zero loss of messages.

Customer support response times could be improved. 

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Customer service is good although they ask for a lot of information that is time-consuming and slows down the process. I'd like to see some improvements in that area. 

The initial setup is very easy. Deployment took a few hours and required a three-person team to implement. 

I recommend this solution and rate it eight out of 10. 

Its ability to transfer large volumes of data reliably.

I have seen in many organizations it has helped in designing great architectural solutions by helping transfer messages between different systems.

5 Years

No

No

No

Did not use.

Did not use.

N/A

N/A

Through Vendor Team. Excellent.

Very good.

N/A

N/A

It is an excellent solution.

We mainly use it for exchanging messages between application servers, back applications (e.g., databases), etc.

The message is delivered. This is the most important thing.

Overall, I have been satisfied with the solution's stability and scalability.

They could integrate monitoring into the solution, a bit more than they do now. Currently, they have opened the REST API so you can get statistic and accounting information and details from MQ and build your own monitoring, if you want. IBM can improve the solution in this direction.

15 years.

It is very stable.

It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters.

We have 20 engineers, admins, and integrators using this solution in our company. 

I would rate IBM technical support as a four (out of five) because they are a big company. If you want to get through all the technical support levels, then you need to spend some time. However, this is normal for such a big company.

The initial setup is straightforward, but you need to take the platform into consideration. If you are talking about Linux, AIX, and Windows, then the setup is really straightforward. However, z/OS or iSeries from IBM are not so straightforward so you need to be familiar with those platforms.

It takes half a day to fully configure MQ on Windows and Linux, and a bit longer on AIX. For z/OS and iSeries, it takes about five days to fully configure their environments.

There is a different platform price between Windows, z/OS, and iSeries.

I would definitely recommend IBM MQ to other people who are looking to implement this solution. They are going in the right direction. Everything is really in place and can be fully obtained. For me, the solution is a perfect product.

I would rate this solution overall as a nine (out of 10).

Everything looks fine. It is 

• stable
• reliable 
• scalable.

I am not involved with it at the architect level. I am providing entry-level support for the product. But perhaps if they could come up with monitoring dashboards that would be good. We are using external monitoring tools, apart from our IBM MQ, to monitor IBM MQ. If we could get monitoring tools or dashboards to keep everything simple for the user to understand, that would be good.

The stability looks good.

The scalability is good. I don't have any issues with it.

The initial setup is not complex. It's very simple. I didn't find any difficulty with it.

Apart from IBM MQ, we are using IBM Integration processor. We are pretty satisfied with the product.

I would strongly recommend the solution, depending on the elements and architecture you're using. If you want to keep your data safe, I would definitely recommend using IBM MQ. We are satisfied with the service provided by IBM MQ. We don't have any issues.

I would rate it at 10 out 10. It's the best.