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. 

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.

• Clustering
• Multi-instance

I have worked with IBM MQ for three to four years.

The stability and performance are good and our customers are happy with these aspects. In my years working with it I haven't seen many issues, and with the type of support IBM provides, it has been fine.

I have been in contact with IBM support many times. I am satisfied with the support.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's not very complex.

Most of our customers are quite happy with the solution but they have an issue with the cost. They want to move to cheaper solutions.

The best advice I can give is that it provides stability and performance and there's no loss of data. That is most important for our customers. The data will never be lost.

It is used by large enterprises.

Ease of use and ease of setup. I'm an admin type, and I can set things up from the command line, and I can set things up through a GUI. It's easy to work with.

We really haven't had any problems with it. I don't have too many positive things to say because usually, I'm in it when things break, and that's when I form my opinions. And I haven't really had to form too many opinions on MQ because it's been really stable.

Can't think of anything right now. There's one little part, but I cannot remember it's name.

Good stability.

Good scalability.

We've had good luck with the MQ people at IBM, in helping us resolve problems.

It helps to plan, and it helps to understand the product. Sometimes management doesn't understand the project, they just go, "Oh hey, it sounds nice. Let's use it." Then they try to slap it on things they don't understand.

When choosing a vendor, stability and reliability are most important to me.

One of the most valuable features is the standardization in terms of messaging; if you have MQ, you probably can talk to anybody. That's one thing: its compatibility. The other one is its stability.

It has improved my organization in many ways. As I’ve mentioned, it's sort of the standard in the market. If you use MQ, you probably can talk to anybody in the market. We also use IBM Integration Bus and they integrate well.

I would like to see them continue to improve the security features to make sure messages are both posted and delivered properly.

For the most part, it is stable. Sometimes, we have issues, but they are internal issues.

On the mainframe, it scales quite well. We're happy because it uses the mainframe's best qualities.

Technical support is average. In terms of efficiency and response time, it's average, comparable to any other vendor. It isn’t better than anybody else that we know.

It's a good product. Don't complicate things. Try to stick to the, let's say, out-of-the-box solutions. Don't be too creative. MQ is about sending messages; it doesn’t incorporate any logic at all.

When selecting a vendor to work with, the most important criteria is that it has to be a strategic vendor for my company to begin with. We have had a mainframe for a long time, so that's quite natural.