Product Development Manager at Arab Bank
Real User
Top 20
Has good stability and is expandable
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
  • "In the next release, I would like for there to be easier monitoring. The UI should be easier for non-technical users to set up appliances and servers."

What is our primary use case?

We are currently working on the use case. I work as an IBM system admin and part of MQ is hosted on the IBM server. We have a lot of other servers and appliances for IBM MQ that costs us a lot of money so we are currently looking for less expensive alternatives. Kafka is one of the choices on the table. We are looking to migrate to services on Google which is why Kafka was proposed for us to implement. 

We use it to integrate the backend and front end solutions and applications. 

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way. 

What needs improvement?

We are looking for another solution that is less expensive.

There is room for improvement. The live and portal monitoring needs improvement. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ for four years. 

Buyer's Guide
IBM MQ
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's very stable. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's scalable. 

How are customer service and support?

I would rate their technical support an eight out of ten.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was average. Not so complex and not so straightforward. 

The deployment itself, not including testing, took a couple of hours. 

What other advice do I have?

It's expandable but it will add costs that should be taken into consideration. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

In the next release, I would like for there to be easier monitoring. The UI should be easier for non-technical users to set up appliances and servers. 

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
Architect & System Engineer at Servicio de Impuestos Internos
Real User
Offers session recovery and high availability with little maintenance
Pros and Cons
  • "The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use it for file transfer and batch processing. We upload electronic documents to the Chilean government.

    We use version M2002 Model B and our clients use version 7.5.

    How has it helped my organization?

    We use it for our factory where we have a system that uploads electronic documents for the entire country.

    What is most valuable?

    The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day.

    The product gives us security.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using it for six years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We are happy with the solution. It is stable and doesn't require much maintenance. Two people maintain this solution: an architect and engineer.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We have two appliances, and that is enough for now.

    There are a million end users.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    The technical support is good. They respond in a timely fashion when we have problems.

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

    We switched to IBM MQ when we consolidated our software and hardware integrations.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was easy because IBM did the installation and integration of MQ with our appliance.

    The deployment took a month.

    What about the implementation team?

    The vendor did the MQ installation. We had a good experience with the IBM consultants.

    What was our ROI?

    We don't keep track of return on investment because we offer a public service.

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

    The price is high. 

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    I did not choose this solution. The company has had it for over 20 years.

    What other advice do I have?

    If you want high availability with little maintenance, choose this solution.

    We don't use containers yet.

    I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10) because it is not perfect.

    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
    IBM MQ
    March 2024
    Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    it_user632754 - PeerSpot reviewer
    System Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
    Real User
    The transactional semantics around messaging and the reliability they have built-in are valuable.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable features are the transactional semantics around messaging, and some of the reliability that they have built-in, from disaster recovery and deliver-once, and at most months, schemes for messages.

    How has it helped my organization?

    One of the things we do is, we send SWIFT messages and SWIFT is built on the MQ protocols. So, that's kind of its core features.

    What needs improvement?

    I really need more of the API management. It's perhaps the biggest thing. I don't really care that much for the analytic side but in terms of monitoring, we have everything tied in the way we need. However, that involved a lot of work on our side, but more importantly, it is really some of the APIs that allow me to do administration and provisioning the whole time.

    The migration from different versions can be very different and difficult. We build a lot of our code around it. For example, we wrap it with the APIs and we embed a lot of things into our environment. We have close to 400,000 lines of code just around that and it has to be a reviewed with every upgrade.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We have a rather large implementation. Perhaps, the largest one on the planet and from a stability perspective, it's very stable, i.e., when it's used appropriately.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    We usually always get to the right people, because of the criticality of some of our problems. So, it works very well.

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup was straightforward and we wrapped it in a very complex way.

    What other advice do I have?

    You should read the manual.

    The way we use this solution, there is nothing else that even comes close to it.

    What's important is that we can team up and work together because we tend to drive the products really hard. So, that relationship with the vendor, at the technical side, is really important to us while selecting a vendor.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user631704 - PeerSpot reviewer
    DB2 Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Even if systems are down, when they come back up, it resends the messages.

    What is most valuable?

    Specifically for MQ, the most valuable feature is the ability for us to deliver messages between applications using the MQ message queuing.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It's more of a guaranteed delivery. So, even if some of our systems are down at that time of delivering messages, when our systems come back up, it goes ahead and resends the messages, so we ensure that the messages are guaranteed.

    What needs improvement?

    I haven't seen any features that we could exploit today that's not currently available. I think everything that's in there today in terms of features; it meets all of my requirements. Everything that were shortcomings in the past, they've already been addressed from different users. The current version 8 is very stable and contains everything that we need to run our operations.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's one of our more stable products on the CMS platform. We really haven't had any issues with that in terms of severity incidents, at least of what I'm aware of for the last three years.

    It's very stable; we've not had to dedicate a lot of resources to support the product and that's a plus.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We have always had some unexpected workload coming in and we haven't had any issues of scaling up or down as and when we need to, so as to handle larger message workloads.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    The only time that we have used support is when we do upgrades. We'll talk to IBM and maybe resolve some of the discrepancies in the product. IBM is very helpful. They are very responsive and if they can't answer the question, they find the person that can.

    What other advice do I have?

    Look at the use case and verify that this product, i.e, the IBM MQ, can meet all of those requirements. If not, then go back and say that this is the feature that we probably may need, because every company may be different in terms of requirements for the product. If they have something that is beyond what this product is capable of delivering, then go ahead, open up a price quote for it.

    It has always delivered and met all of our application requirements. Due to this, it has no shortcomings that I've experienced.

    The criteria we look for while selecting a vendor are stability, where they are in the market place, what other research firms have placed them for the area we are looking for like Forrester and RAD group. We depend on them a lot to narrow down the number of vendors that we are looking for.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Ahmed Elgrouney - PeerSpot reviewer
    Software Integration Developer at ISFP
    Real User
    Top 10
    An excellent solution with great security and monitoring capabilities
    Pros and Cons
    • "The product helps us monitor messages with other queues, view duplicated messages and control undelivered messages."
    • "It would be great if the dashboard had additional features like a board design."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use this solution locally and work in port authority where we deal with multiple parties like warehousing, containers, customs and Egyptian customs. Therefore we can communicate with each other and achieve middleware goals. We use the MQ Server and MQ client in each party and control it with the MQ server in port authority.

    How has it helped my organization?

    The product has allowed our organization to deal with all parties, like containers and warehousing. As a result, we can deal with these parties, exchange messages, and achieve our goals.

    What is most valuable?

    We have found the security and monitoring capabilities of the product most valuable. The product helps us monitor messages with other queues, view duplicated messages and control undelivered messages so they can be stored in pack-out queues and restored. We like more than one feature in MQ as the product is secure. For example, we can exchange messages between all parties with a stake and have control of undelivered and unrouted messages. Furthermore, with a scheme of validation, we can report access.

    What needs improvement?

    The dashboard is handy because we use it to monitor the messages and know how many messages are delivered to parties' dashboards. For example, we can notice how many letters are delivered, how many messages are undelivered, and how many messages are brought incorrectly by the dashboard. However, it would be great if the dashboard had additional features like a board design or picture management features.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using this solution for over six years and are currently using MQ version nine.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The solution is stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The solution is scalable. Over ten parties, with 10,000 people, are using this solution in our organization, and two employees are required for maintenance. One employee is a system analyst, and the other is an integration developer.

    How are customer service and support?

    I rate technical support a ten out of ten.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Positive

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

    We did not previously use any other solutions.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install and configure.

    What about the implementation team?

    The deployment was done in-house.

    What was our ROI?

    The product is good, and our organization has used this product for more than ten years.

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

    The licenses for our company are according to port authority contract sales and we buy a license for six months or one year. I don't know the exact costs of the licenses.

    What other advice do I have?

    I rate this solution a ten out of ten because we have no issues with it. The solution is good, but improvements could be made to the dashboard.

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
    PeerSpot user
    Ops Innovation Platform Manager at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
    Real User
    Well encrypted, stable, and scalable but needs improvement in marketing
    Pros and Cons
    • "Encryption and the fact that we have not had any data loss issues so far have been very valuable features. IBM MQ is well encrypted so that we are well within our compliance and regulatory requirements, so that is a plus point as well."
    • "With IBM products, there's less marketing. If they do more demos and more seminars on their products, it will be very useful. On a given day. I get seminar invites for many vendors and products, but for IBM, I may get an invite once or twice a year."

    What is our primary use case?

    We have various strips statements, and we use IBM MQ to pass those strips statements to different systems within our organization.

    What is most valuable?

    Encryption and the fact that we have not had any data loss issues so far have been very valuable features. IBM MQ is well encrypted so that we are well within our compliance and regulatory requirements, so that is a plus point as well.

    What needs improvement?

    I would like to see their cloud feasibility with other vendors. I know that they are very much tied to their own cloud right now, but I don't know how they are supporting AWS and Azure.

    With IBM products, there's less marketing. If they do more demos and more seminars on their products, it will be very useful. On a given day. I get seminar invites for many vendors and products, but for IBM, I may get an invite once or twice a year.

    Documentation is easily available to people who know about IBM products. However, if you're not familiar with the products and because there are no popups about seminars and product news, you will not be able to easily find the documentation. So, I think that there's a gap in IBM's marketing, which needs to be improved.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's been a pretty reliable and well structured solution so far.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It's very good and scalable. Currently, we use it within the EMEA and APAC regions, and we have a few regions in the Middle East as well. We haven't had any issues so far in terms of scalability because we started with APAC. Usually, we start with only London and then slowly start extending to Europe and APAC regions. So, it's scalable because we started with one region, and now, we already have four or five regions.

    We have a middleware team of 45 to 50 people in APAC and EMEA who use IBM MQ, but the usage is not limited to the team. We have users across all our venous functions everywhere because this is for backend transmissions connectivity. We use Message Queue everywhere.

    At the moment, there are no plans to increase usage, but I think we'll soon be looking to do so. By the first quarter of 2022, we will be moving most applications to the cloud. We know that IBM MQ is very well supported in the cloud and that it will be easier. Right now, our infrastructure is very much on-premise dependent, and we have some legacy dependencies there. So to get to the cloud for us is a big journey, and once we are at that stage, then we'll be able to look into increasing usage.

    How was the initial setup?

    We setup IBM MQ about four or five years back. I think the setup now would be much easier than the one we did then.

    What other advice do I have?

    IBM MQ was the first product that I got introduced to when I started my journey with IBM. This is my 14th year in this industry, and I see that this application is still very much useful and applicable. So I always recommend IBM MQ, and this is one of the most popular IBM products.

    I would rate it at seven on a scale from one to 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
    PeerSpot user
    ICT Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
    Real User
    ExpertTop 5
    Improved and influenced communication between different applications, then standardized that communication
    Pros and Cons
    • "This solution has improved and influenced the communication between different applications, then standardized that communication."
    • "I don’t like legacy view of MQ."

    What is our primary use case?

    We develop applications for 20 companies in the insurance industry. We have about 20 different product systems that use the same MQ layout. 

    We are also using it for testing and educational purposes.

    Our customer base is in the closed market of Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

    We just switched versions from 8.0.0.6 to 9.1.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Most European companies have MQ, though we just added it four years ago. MQ changes the way people think about their applications. E.g., they are more integrated. We see synergies with the tool, but there is a long path to changing people’s minds.

    What is most valuable?

    The MQ layout is quite easy.

    It is very stable. We don't have many issues.

    What needs improvement?

    We have had an issue with the migration. Most of our applications are running on Java and WebSphere. We have a project to get rid of an old .NET application since we are experiencing a loss in connection during the migration to 9.1. The problem appears to be more on the .NET side than the MQ side though.

    The technical user interface is outdated in terms of the language used. I think this is inherited from the mainframe. This is more of an engineering issue. It is running on a Windows platform, and I don't like having Windows being the backbone of our company.

    I don’t like legacy view of MQ.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    Four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We don't have a problem with stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We have not had any large scalability issues. The business that we have is not that big. In Switzerland, we have around 3,000 people working with all our systems. We don't have that many transactions. For our 20 customers, we have four servers in production with two on standby and two that are active. We need scalability mostly to run large printing jobs for MQ, where we need disk space. Overall, we don't have any scalability issues.

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

    This solution has improved and influenced the communication between different applications, then standardized that communication. Before, we had a lot of different interfaces, which were partly handwritten. Now, we have two or three manned technology with MQ that are automated. Therefore, we are focusing and reducing the amount of technology.

    For some special parts, we also had something previously in place. We ran around 100 to 1000 PDFs in a batch mode.

    How was the initial setup?

    We have a standardized way in describing our servers, services and rights because we have our own infrastructure. We just generate the MQSC scripts, then push it to the right server.

    What about the implementation team?

    The time it takes to deliver a new integration varies. From our point of view, we are really fast, but we do not develop applications on our own. We are a type of project management and system provider company. This means that most applications are written by different companies. E.g., we have IBM as a software supplier.

    Two people from our company maintain the solution along with a consulting company that we have. All this is done part-time.

    What was our ROI?

    Our costs haven't increased but they also have not improved.

    What other advice do I have?

    We are happy with it. I would give it an eight (out of 10). 

    We are not using containers.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Private Cloud
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    it_user632751 - PeerSpot reviewer
    IT Manager at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees
    Vendor
    I like that the ability to add applications to it is simple.
    Pros and Cons
    • "There are a lot of extensible options for security, i.e., various things you can do. It's pretty easy to navigate."
    • "Presenting and maybe having some different options for different user experiences based on the administrative duties that you have to do as an app manager or configure the server or security would be an improvement."

    How has it helped my organization?

    It allows more people to be able to support the application. They have training and we get folks to actually go in and bounce services and update services through IBM MQ because it is graphical. It's fairly intuitive on what's there. It enables us to have better and deeper support as an organization.

    What is most valuable?

    What I like about IBM MQ is that the ability to add applications to it is quite simple. There are a lot of extensible options for security, i.e., various things you can do. It's pretty easy to navigate. It's pretty easy to install and use from that perspective. Those are the things that I really like about it. It's our web hosting application of choice over using something like Tomcat or whatever because you can click through it, you can see things, and it's a lot easier from an administrative standpoint.

    What needs improvement?

    I think one of the things to improve on could be more administrative profiles which might simplify the experience. IBM MQ has a lot of settings. We're only using probably a fraction, maybe 10%, of the overall settings. Working for a large aerospace/defense firm, we have pretty tight security. There are a lot of settings that we do have but we're still only just scraping the surface of what's there. Being able to get to those sub-menus can be a bit challenging.

    So there's the fact that there's a lot in IBM MQ presenting only the options that maybe somebody might do, such as a web application administrator might have to do. They don't need to see all the other bindings that are there, so it could be a little overwhelming trying to find it. So, I think if there's anything, that would probably be it.

    Presenting and maybe having some different options for different user experiences based on the administrative duties that you have to do as an app manager or configure the server or security would be an improvement. For instance, in our information insurance organization, we have folks that go in and look at the security bindings that we have with our applications. Having those different roles mapped would be an asset, so you're not having to go through all the various sub-menus to find it would be something that would, I think, take it over the edge.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Stability is really good, actually. We haven't had any issues with IBM MQ .

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We haven't had any issues adding applications to it and scaling up from it. So all in all, I think it's been fantastic.

    How is customer service and technical support?

    I would say that technical support is average. Obviously, we are going through their PMR system. They are such a large company. I think the availability of somebody on the phone or calling somebody when you need something fixed immediately is a bit challenging for the organization. I think that's an area that they can improve on.

    If we have IBM MQ or one of the applications go down, our entire plant is down. Then sometimes, it's 2-3 hours or something before someone calls us back. It would be nice if we can call somebody and have somebody you can actually work with that is knowledgeable on the product right away. That's my only gripe.

    For a lot of other things, like lower priority items, working through the PMR system's been fine. I think their system is good. I just think that they need to be a little bit more responsive to their severity one tickets.

    How was the initial setup?

    Initial setup was pretty straightforward. The more complicated part of it was the actual IBM CLM tools implemented within IBM MQ. IBM MQ itself was pretty simple.

    I've heard that there have been challenges with upgrades, but we haven't gone through an upgrade cycle yet, at least in quite some time. We'll see how well that is but we haven't had that challenge yet.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We didn't evaluate any other products beforehand. It was just what IBM recommended.

    Typically, what we'll do is, we'll go with the vendor recommendations because from a support perspective, if they're saying that because they support an application, we prefer to do go with that one because we know we can get the support as it goes on. That's really it.

    Access to support is the most important criteria for me when assessing vendors. I think support is a key for us being in IT because we are supporting the application, so we need good support.

    The second one is the ability to reach the developers on key issues and improvements that we would want to see in future versions of the application. Being able to influence the roadmap, I guess you could say. That would probably be the second thing we care about.

    There are a lot of vendors that don't take that seriously. Like, you go in and you might have great features that would really broaden their product base, adoption of their tools. Some want to hear it; some don't. I think the ones that do hear that end up being more successful; they find ways to work that information back into their development stream.

    That's probably the second most important criteria but, again, being in IT, I'm looking out for myself a little bit there. Support is number one.

    What other advice do I have?

    I don't think I'd give anyone any advice at all. It's pretty straightforward to go and implement. The only thing that I would say is that perhaps if you're - depending on what you need to do - like deploying some of the IBM CLM tools, you might look maybe for a lighter-weight solution because of those various menus.

    I know there are other IBM products and there are various lighter-weight solutions that are provided as part of the IBM MQ family. Going with something that's not full IBM MQ but maybe one of the other IBM products that's much more suitable for your organizational needs would be a good choice.

    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: March 2024
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free IBM MQ Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.