IBM MQ Reviews

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.

I usually recommend IBM MQ for financial, government, and large enterprise companies. It is beneficial for handling high volumes of messages.

Using IBM MQ ensures the guaranteed delivery of messages, which is significant for my clients. It is also known for its security.

The most valuable features of IBM MQ are its guarantee of delivery, ability to handle high volume while maintaining high availability, and robust security measures such as SSL, TLS, and RBAC.

There are no improvements needed at this time.

I have been familiar with IBM MQ for roughly 20 years. It's been essential for many sectors during this time.

I rate the stability of IBM MQ as ten out of ten.

I give the scalability of IBM MQ a rating of eight out of ten.

The technical support from IBM is good.

Positive

Before IBM MQ, I was not using similar products. For comparison, I have used Kafka.

The initial setup is generally straightforward.

Part of our work is to assist customers during the installation and configuration of IBM MQ.

For an enterprise solution, the pricing of IBM MQ is very reasonable.

I have also used Kafka before.

IBM MQ has been in the market for over 20 years; it is an essential solution for most banking, financial, and government sectors.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I worked as an employee for a bank where we recommended IBM MQ, and we used it.

It's for real-time messaging, an exchange between applications.

On the IBM side, we use Message Queue, all the Message Queue products from IBM. For six years, we used it for a bank, an international bank, and we integrated all the applications synchronously using Message Queue.

IBM MQ is highly scalable and has a reconciliation mechanism. These are the two main reasons we use IBM MQ. 

IBM MQ should have more extensive documentation because I couldn't find a lot of information on the system API side to help us monitor the message queuing. 

I would like to see more documentation.

I have been using it for six years. We used it for a bank, an international bank, and we integrated all the applications synchronously using Message Queue.

It has been a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. 

The customer service and support have always been great.

Positive

I know there are competitors like RabbitMQ and Dell Boomi. I believe RabbitMQ is built on open source and they have a licensed version as well. I don't know much about RabbitMQ or Dell Boomi at this point.

IBM MQ is highly stable and quite customizable to integrate with our systems.

We definitely installed using a service provider, and it's not that complex. It's easy. It took three to six months to start implementing the first use case. 

Around six to ten people were involved in the deployment. It is easy to maintain and stable.

The ROI is  good, but we only used it for a few use cases like banking customers. It's quite stable, so we got the value out of the installation.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It's expensive, not cheap.

I would like to rate it as a seven out of ten. It is quite stable, but it needs to have more documentation, and that is why I rate it as a seven out of ten. 

At this moment, we don't see a use case for implementing AI, but it is definitely in our roadmap. We will definitely try to find a use case to implement any new features that get announced.

Our primary use case for IBM MQ is as an enterprise messaging between applications. So when applications need to transmit data from one to another, they use a messaging broker, the IBM MQ, RabbitMQ and ActiveMQ.

We have found the MQ messaging topologies valuable mainly the published, subscribe and direct messaging. A feature that no other market could offer at the time was data-addressed encryption.

The clustering model can be improved to allow consumers to consume from all brokers simultaneously. Currently, the issue is that they're using a very old clustering model where several of the individual brokers in the same cluster still behave as individuals rather than behaving like a cluster. They call it a cluster, but it's just a group of brokers not working as a cluster. It doesn't properly share the resources between all of the member clusters. Compared to other solutions like Apache Kafka, or RabbitMQ, this is a huge drawback.

We have been using the solution for approximately nine years, deploying it on public, private cloud and on-premises.

The solution is stable.

The solution is not easily scalable. 

Technical support is tough to connect with because the training and documentation from IBM are awful and the technical support from IBM is also poor. So it's easier to solve your issue using Google rather than calling support at IBM.

The initial setup was a bit complex. The installation itself can take anywhere from half an hour to four hours, and the configuration could also take a couple of hours, depending on the complexity of the design.

The solution is expensive.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but the clustering model can be improved. My advice to others considering the solution is to check other products on the market and ensure their product of choice complies with everything they need. They should go for IBM MQ but ensure they carefully read the terms and conditions and view the price beforehand. Alternatively, if they want to go with a more lightweight solution that is just as reliable, they should review RabbitMQ.

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.