Coming October 25: PeerSpot Awards will be announced! Learn more

IBM MQ OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

IBM MQ is #1 ranked solution in top Business Activity Monitoring tools, top Message Queue Software, and top Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) tools. PeerSpot users give IBM MQ an average rating of 8.2 out of 10. IBM MQ is most commonly compared to Apache Kafka: IBM MQ vs Apache Kafka. IBM MQ is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 78% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a financial services firm, accounting for 32% of all views.
IBM MQ Buyer's Guide

Download the IBM MQ Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2022

What is IBM MQ?

    IBM MQ is a middleware product used to send or exchange messages across multiple platforms, including applications, systems, files, and services via MQs (messaging queues). This solution helps simplify the creation of business applications, and also makes them easier to maintain. IBM MQ is security-rich, has high performance, and provides a universal messaging backbone with robust connectivity. In addition, it also integrates easily with existing IT assets by using an SOA (service oriented architecture).

    IBM MQ can be deployed:

    • On-premises
    • In the cloud
    • Hybrid cloud

    IBM MQ supports the following APIs:

    • MQI (Message Queue Interface)
    • REST
    • .NET
    • MQTT
    • JMS
    • IBM MQ Light


    IBM MQ Features

    Some of the most powerful IBM MQ features include:

    • High availability
    • Stability and scalability
    • Flexible deployment options
    • Uniform clusters
    • Automated and intelligent workload balancing
    • Broad language, API, and messaging protocol support
    • Administrative features that simplify messaging management
    • Open standards development tools
    • Simple management tools

    IBM MQ Benefits

    Some of the benefits of using IBM MQ include:

    • Multi-style messaging: IBM MQ supports simple multi-style messaging, making it easy to connect diverse systems with support for message queuing, transactions, and more.

    • Reduced risk: With IBM MQ you will never lose a message, and messages are never delivered more than once.

    • Cloud-native: Because IBM MQ has a minimal infrastructure, it is suitable to be cloud-native, and therefore has the capability to always remain on.

    • Available anywhere: Using IBM MQ, you have access to secure messaging anywhere, at any time.

    • Secure: IBM MQ makes sure to keep your data safe by using TLS secured communications, providing access identity management, message-level security, and more measures to protect your information.

    • Easy for application programmers: To use IBM MQ, application programmers do not need to have any knowledge of communications programming.

    • Technical support: IBM MQ has a large user community and also provides support 24/7 as needed.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by IBM MQ users who are currently using the solution.

    PeerSpot user Sunil S., a manager at a financial services firm, explains that they never lose messages are never lost in transit, mentioning that he can store messages and forward them as required: "Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."

    Another PeerSpot reviewer, Luis L. who is a solutions director at Thesys Technologies, says that IBM MQ is a valuable solution and is "A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."

    The head of operations at a financial services firm notes that "I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, is easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use."

    In addition, a Software Engineer at a financial services firm praises the security benefits of it and states that “it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes."

IBM MQ was previously known as WebSphere MQ.

IBM MQ Customers

Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation

IBM MQ Video

Archived IBM MQ Reviews (more than two years old)

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Walter Kuhn - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Buyer's Guide
IBM MQ
September 2022
Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
635,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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 Development Manager at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Very stable with good integration capabilities and easy to work with
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution is very easy to work with."
  • "The solution isn't free. There are other solutions, like RabbitMQ, which are open source and absolutely free to use. It's one reason we are moving away from IBM."

What is our primary use case?

IBM WebSphere MQ is deployed on a Windows machine, as well as almost all of our infrastructure. Windows services read and write to the MQ server - this is the way that we interact with it. All the messages that we put on the queue are also stored in an SQL Databases. A Windows service reads that message from the SQL Database storage and puts it on a queue on a certain channel; these Windows services are running indefinitely, on a loop so any message is read instantly. 

What is most valuable?

The solution is very easy to work with.

The solution is very stable, it also offers transaction management and support.

The solution offers very good integration with other services. It's one of the great advantages of the service.

What needs improvement?

We have had it for a long time now - version 7.1, which is not the latest. 

The admin interface of MQ Explorer that is used to interact with the server seems a little bit dated. It makes it somehow difficult to interact with it. It needs a major update to make it more modern and easy to navigate, maybe a web version.

The solution isn't free. There are other solutions, like RabbitMQ, which are open source and absolutely free to use. This open source solution we use it for non-critical processes.

IBM offers a special version that you need to get if you want to transfer files, especially large files. Maybe it should be included in any version.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using the solution for a very long time. It's been at least a decade - about ten years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is good. We've never run into any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

IBM MQ offers clustering. We don't have this yet, as it hasn't been implemented, however, I know that you can install it in a cluster of servers. 

My understanding is RabbitMQ is also easier to scale. I'm unsure as to how well IBM can scale in comparison.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've never contacted technical support in the past. I can't speak to their level or service due to the fact that I've never directly dealt with them.

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

We're also using RabbitMQ. While IBM is more stable, RabbitMQ is easier to work with. 

We've been trying to change our architecture, and RabbitMQ is more appropriate for us as it's easier to put together with microservices.

How was the initial setup?

While I was part of the process for implementing RabbitMQ, which was very simple and straightforward, in the case of IBM, I didn't install it myself. Unfortunately, I cannot explain how easy or difficult it was as I was not part of the experience. My understanding is it's not too difficult.

In terms of maintenance, we have two people from the support team handling that aspect. They can restart the server or look into the queues. They aren't working in shifts, however, if there are issues, one of them is normally available to troubleshooting.

In comparison, for RabbitMQ, we had only one developer that installed it and created the publishers, workers etc. I believe the support will be the same as for IBM. In both cases, there aren't too many people needed for maintenance.

What other advice do I have?

I'd recommend the solution. It's a very stable solution and very resilient. 

If there is not essential data that needs to be transported between services, then I would go for a RabbitMQ, because it's easier in style, and it's free to use. On top of that, you can have it to wrap around everything in a straightforward way.

That said, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've used it for a number of years and it's always worked very well for us.

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
September 2022
Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2022.
635,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Lead Architect at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 10
It's a very strong integration platform but it's developed as more of an on-premise solution
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
  • "It's hard to put in a nutshell, but it's sort of developed as more of an on-premise solution. It hasn't moved much away from that."

What is our primary use case?

It's the EAI for connecting all our services like transport systems, replenishment systems, and order entry systems to our supply chain warehouse systems.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform and it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything.

At the moment we're trying to be a little bit more nimble in terms of how we deliver things for the business. We need to look at using some of the cloud-first as we have invested quite heavily in Azure. So we want to move away from all our legacy data centers and at the right time, we will move into the cloud as much as possible.

What needs improvement?

It's hard to put in a nutshell, but it's sort of developed as more of an on-premise solution. It hasn't moved much away from that. But we want to use the auto-scaling and scalability of some of the cloud services. It has developed a fair bit in terms of even the database of the board and stuff like that. Over the next three to five years, we want to move totally into the Azure.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ for fifteen years in total. 

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 the old way, old school scaler, where you need to add calls and you need to add memory, you need to add compute power, and you need to add storage capacity. You need to have bigger CPUs and more and more cores.

That's the old way of doing it. So you need to think about hardware. You need to think about memory, you need to think about storage capacity, you need to think about different switches, network switches, and whatnot. Scalability hasn't been a problem. It's just the sort of older generation of doing scaling so we want to be able to scale in the cloud.

The process for the scaling could be a little bit simplified.

How are customer service and technical support?

IBM handles technical support. They are good. 

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

We did a selection and instead of going with some of the others, like TIBCO and whatnot, we went with IBM MQ.

How was the initial setup?

We've set it up in several ways. I had it for a year. Each original implementation was with Accenture and we've had several crews come in to manage the services. There are different SIs that come in like Tech Mahindra and HCL. Over 15 years we've had a lot of independents come in and support. 

We're just building on top of the existing platform now. But we've made a strategic decision to move away from this on-premise infrastructure, the data centers if possible.

We've got 4,000 employees, it's quite a sizeable business that we take on vendors to come in. We're not an IT shop. Different managed services from different vendors.

We don't consider users for the platform. It's more about what transactions. So I think it ranges from two and a half million to 10 million messages a day.

What other advice do I have?

My advice would be to rethink the cloud strategy. Make sure to have certain components that you can put into the cloud. Think about cloud-first properly so that it scales automatically. It knows how to work with some of the container services that are out there so that it scales better. It has some cloud components that are good but you still have quite a strong on-prem infrastructure to support it.

It's quite a complete solution. They have modules and stuff that they acquire and may add on as features and modules, additional modules, which is a very complete solution. It's been expensive to keep going the way we're going. And the turnaround is a bit slow, slower than we want. The business is changing quite rapidly, being in retail so we need to pivot quite quickly. And so that's why we're looking at seriously moving towards the cloud where we can simplify some of our processes and actually even our maintenance in it and the way we operate.

I would rate IBM MQ a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Microsoft Azure
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Mohammad Al-Smadi - PeerSpot reviewer
IBM System Administrator at Arab Bank
Real User
Has good stability and is expandable

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. 

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 technical 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
Unix/Linux Systems Administrator at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20Leaderboard
Easy to install and manage, with the stability needed for our banking application
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
  • "The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory."

What is our primary use case?

We have a core banking application. If any system or application wants to talk to the core banking application, the request and the response will go through the MQ servers. The requests and responses are in the form of XML.

We have a VMware environment with Windows and Linux. 

How has it helped my organization?

We have clients spread all over Africa and they have to process different types of requests, such as credit requests and debit requests. We use the Queue Manager to handle these requests. Our MQ server will accept the request and send it on to our core banking application.

If you imagine the order from left to right, the application is on the left, then the enqueue server is in the middle, and the core banking is on the right. In between the queue server and the banking application, we have APIs and systems in place to understand the XML files.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server.

Managing this solution is not difficult.

IBM MQ is very stable, which is important for our core banking application.

What needs improvement?

The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory. We have 24 gigabytes of RAM and almost every day, we had to free up processes so that it can run.

Some of our messages were not being transmitted so we had to manually look at the MQ server to cut and paste them. That is supposed to be fully automated. The problem is normally a routing issue but it is compounded if there are connectivity troubles. For example, if 3,000 messages are supposed to be sent but 1,000 were not then you have to do it manually.

The solution is not very lightweight and if it could be decentralized, then put into three or four containers, it may be an improvement in this regard.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ since 2015.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The MQ service has never gone down and has never failed us. It is only offline when the VM is offline.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This is a scalable solution. We scale by adding another VM to our cluster.

We have eight engineers who are using MQ, but in terms of end-users, or people who are consuming the services, there are thousands or millions. It is an enterprise-level organization and each application has a user base, so the scale depends on the application.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have never had support for this solution.

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

As far as I understand, we did not use another solution prior to IBM MQ. Our old strategy did not use this type of technology.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very straightforward. I have done it both on Linux and on Windows. With Windows, it is just a case of hitting the "next" button. I would say that within ten minutes, you should be finished with the installation.

Prior to the installation, you have to make sure that you have Java installed.

What about the implementation team?

I deployed this solution for the company.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on the environment. We used to have one person manage each application that was connected to the MQ server, which meant that we had four people maintaining it.

What was our ROI?

It is difficult to assess the ROI for this type of solution.

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

IBM MQ is expensive and they charge based on the CPU.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I am familiar with a couple of similar solutions, including Red Hat AMQ. In fact, I am trying to migrate to Red Hat. It is very easy to install and get it running. All you have to do is get your API and you're done. Stability-wise, however, with Red Hat AMQ, I have seen cases where some of the messages were lost. IBM MQ is definitely more stable.

What other advice do I have?

For the most part, this solution serves our purpose. It is not difficult to manage and the only challenges we have really had were to deal with some of the messages manually.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider costs first. It is expensive and you have to ask what value you are going to get from it. You need to consider factors like how many messages you are sending per day. If your budget is sufficient then IBM MQ is your choice, otherwise, you should look into a cheaper option. Also, if stability is the most important thing to you then IBM MQ is the choice that you want to make.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 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
George Thomas - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Architect at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Reduced various footprints of the database but it is expensive
Pros and Cons
  • "IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
  • "It is expensive. The cost is high. There should be more improvement in the new age of technologies."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case for pushing data as a queuing mechanism for all the applications to send out messages. We use it as a pipeline. We also use it to publish data and for the application to extract it all.

How has it helped my organization?

In terms of runtime, we just push data. We have reduced the various footprints of the database and for transmitting the data from one location to another. MQ is reliable and more structured and it's helped us a lot in pushing the data. The data can be pushed and it will be persistent. It helps us and the connectivity between the data as two separate applications and our middleware interactions are much faster and more reliable.

What is most valuable?

IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features. 

What needs improvement?

IBM MQ has a lot of room for improvement. It's an older solution but they are improving the product. It's wider and it's a heavy application so it supports clusters also. 

It is expensive. The cost is high. There should be more improvement in the new age of technologies. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ for ten years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is good. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is high.

How are customer service and technical support?

Their support is very good. IBM MQ is around 20 years old. The technicians have a lot of expertise with it.

How was the initial setup?

MQ is has a straightforward implementation. There is not much configuration required. It is more complicated for a cluster implementation and the active-passive implementation. You'll need more technical knowledge 

A regular deployment will take around five to 10 minutes. If it's for a cluster implementation, it will take at least 15 to 30 minutes.

We have an internal team that does the implementation. We asked IBM to do the deployment. 

What other advice do I have?

If you use it for evaluation purposes, it's good but if you're using it for freeware, it's not so good. 

Multiple fault tolerance and partition tolerance are great. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
PeerSpot user
Manager Specialist Platform (Java) at a tech consulting company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Backup queue concept and topics are unique features, but throughput could be better
Pros and Cons
  • "It also has a backup queue concept and topics, features that I have not seen anywhere else. I like these features very much."
  • "It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions."

What is our primary use case?

We use it for data integration.

What is most valuable?

It's very stable. 

It also has a backup queue concept and topics, features that I have not seen anywhere else. I like these features very much.

What needs improvement?

It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been dealing with IBM MQ for the last six months.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's scalable. It's not for every use case, but you can scale it.

We have about 50 users of IBM MQ.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is good.

How was the initial setup?

The setup is between straightforward and complex. It's not as straightforward as Apache ActiveMQ.

What about the implementation team?

We did the setup.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I like Kafka more. MQ is number-two compared to Kafka.

What other advice do I have?

It's a good product but I think it's too costly. That's one disadvantage because there are already many open-source products, like RabbitMQ, Kafka, and ActiveMQ. If you really need a solid MQ solution then go with IBM MQ. If you don't need such a robust solution then you can go with any of the other solutions.

I would rate IBM MQ at seven out of 10. It has less throughput.

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
Mohamed Ramses - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Consultant at Ministry of Justice, Kuwait
Consultant
Secure, fast, and easy to work with

What is most valuable?

  • Secure
  • Safe
  • Very fast

It's a very good product. Very easy to work with.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ for about nine years. We have many projects with it in many places in Kuwait.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

There have been no issues with the stability of the solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I haven't had any issues with the scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

I only contacted technical support when I wanted to upgrade Windows Server. It's not that easy to move. I had Windows 2008, and I wanted to go to Windows 2012 or '16. You have to reinstall, or there was a solution somebody told me about and that made life easier.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. On the AS/400, setup takes about an hour.

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

Whatever the price is, it's worth it.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend it to other people. When somebody wants to do colocation with us, we force them to buy IBM MQ.

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
Srinivasa Reddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
The architecture provides assured delivery
Pros and Cons
  • "I like the architecture it provides seamlessly for assured delivery."
  • "They have provided a Liberty Profile in the Web Console for administration, and that could be further enhanced. It is not fit for use by an enterprise. They have to get rid of their WebSphere process and develop a front-end on Node.js or the like."

What is our primary use case?

It's predominantly for message queuing, to assure delivery.

Our team manages messaging aspects with this product, among others.

What is most valuable?

I like the architecture it provides seamlessly for assured delivery.

What needs improvement?

The monitoring could be even better by building it into the product. The disaster recovery mechanism could also be built-in. 

I would like to see them not rely on third-party tools for everything.

Finally, they have provided a Liberty Profile in the Web Console for administration, and that could be further enhanced. It is not fit for use by an enterprise. They have to get rid of their WebSphere process and develop a front-end on Node.js or the like.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with IBM MQ for almost seven years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is stable, for sure.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We are facing some issues with the scalability in some of the components. That can be improved.

How are customer service and technical support?

We are satisfied with the technical support.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes a few minutes.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We started with IBM but we have recently been looking at Kafka and Solace.

What other advice do I have?

If you have mission-critical applications that rely on an exchange of data, and the data is very valuable, then I would suggest using MQ.

We have a team of people of 50 to 60 people using it, in middleware admin.

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
IT Team Lead at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Clustering is good, but the setup is difficult

What is our primary use case?

We use it to send a notification to our customers.

What is most valuable?

The clusterization which results in persistence is the most valuable feature. I only use a very small number of its features.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ for about three years. For about one year I wrote adapters for IBM Broker and for two years or more I wrote services that used IBM MQ. This was a Java application by JMS.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is okay.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is not an issue of IBM MQ. There is no replication of messages and that is very bad for systems. Only persistence can solve this issue.

How are customer service and technical support?

IBM technical support is good.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is difficult. Creating your own cluster is difficult and working with cluster repositories is difficult. Issue management with IBM MQ is difficult.

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

It's a very expensive product.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I like RabbitMQ more than IBM MQ.

What other advice do I have?

If you have a lot of money then I would, of course, recommend IBM MQ.

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
Upendra Rao - PeerSpot reviewer
Independent Consultant at State Bank of India
Consultant
Can be integrated with multiple systems and has reliable queuing

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case is for messaging monitoring. 

What is most valuable?

The reliability of the queuing is the most valuable feature. 

What needs improvement?

I can't say pricing is good. It is a popular and reliable solution. IBM can be integrated with other products which is why it gets sold. People also like Oracle. They can be integrated with multiple systems. That is a selling point for these solutions. 

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using IBM MQ for fifteen years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We never have had a problem with the scalability. We had a problem but the company who was helping us figured out that it wasn't because of IBM MQ, it was another problem. Scalability has been good.

We have a little more than 100 users. 

How are customer service and technical support?

The product is stable and reliable. We don't generally have support issues. If the product isn't good, people will say that it's not a good product but the support is good. If it's a good product, you won't need much support. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup for the messaging part is straightforward. For other features, it's of medium complexity.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the pricing.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Sergey Sidorov - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief of Integration Department at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Enables us to integrate core applications and external solutions from our partners

What is our primary use case?

We use it for all our integration cases, including the integration of core applications within our company and external solutions from our partners.

We use IBM MQ and IBM Integration Bus, App Connect.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the interaction within the system.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been dealing with IBM MQ for five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is very stable. There are some bugs, but they are very small.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scaling is difficult with IBM MQ.

How are customer service and technical support?

The support from IBM Russia is good.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is 50/50, between straightforward and complex. The difficult part is because for the integration of other systems with IBM MQ, they need to use software from the IBM client. But the installation itself is not difficult.

What about the implementation team?

We had assistance from an integrator.

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

It would be a 10 out of 10 if it wasn't so expensive.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend the solution, but it is very costly.

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
Sanjeev Nirala - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Technical Architect at Nagarro
Consultant
Offers better reliability and monitoring compared to other tools, though performance is lacking
Pros and Cons
  • "It offers better reliability and monitoring compared to other tools."
  • "Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market."

What is our primary use case?

There are a couple of projects where we are using MQ heavily.

It is on-premises right now. We are looking to move to the cloud in the future.

What is most valuable?

  • Offers better reliability and monitoring compared to other tools.
  • Integrates well with other IBM solutions. Therefore, it makes sense to use this product when a company has a large IBM solutions portfolio.

What needs improvement?

I would like IBM to improve the performance. Right now, it is lacking and can be bulky.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using it for three to four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is a stable product. The reliability is better than open source software solutions. MQ performs even in extreme conditions.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market. However, IBM is working to move their products into the cloud.

The software is more suited for medium to large businesses.

How are customer service and technical support?

The support is good. They try to resolve problems as quickly as possible.

How was the initial setup?

The setup and configurations are very easy, not complex. I would give the product plus points for this. This is compared to readily available, open source products that make you scratch your head when you go to set them up because they don't have documentation.

It takes a couple days to deploy the product to production.

What about the implementation team?

We are a software development firm working with medium to large businesses.

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

It is a very expensive product compared to the open source products in the market.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We are also using Kafka, which is an open source tool, extensively in our projects. 

What other advice do I have?

This is a good product if you are looking for 100 percent stability and reliability, as opposed to implementing an open source solution.

I would rate the product as a seven (out of 10).

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
PrabhasMishra - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Manager at MetLife
Real User
The performance and reliability are some of its valuable features, but I want to ensure event-driven mechanisms are included in the next release
Pros and Cons
  • "Combined with IBM MQ, this product is our primary data store."
  • "I'm not sure that current version has event-driven mechanism requests that people go for. I would like the latest version to come with both type of event mechanisms: an email server and a POP server. If that is not there, then that would be a great addition."

How has it helped my organization?

We work with an organization who has only one product and that works with IBM MQ. Combined with IBM MQ, this product is our primary data store.

What is most valuable?

There are many things that I like about IBM MQ, such as, its performance and reliability. 

What needs improvement?

I'm not sure that current version has event-driven mechanism requests that people go for. I would like the latest version to come with both type of event-driven mechanisms: an email server and a POP server. If that is not there, then that would be a great addition.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been with a company for the last three years who has been using IBM. I was with another organization before that who used it for four or five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

For the last three years, I haven't faced any stability issues. I would rate the stability as a nine (out of 10).

How are customer service and technical support?

Support is managed by the vendor management team. This is being taken care by some of the managers.

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

I was not involved in the pricing structure.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

There are quite a lot of competitors of IBM MQ who have high capabilities.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate the product as a seven (out of 10).

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
Service Delivery Consultant at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
No loss of data is a key feature for our customers

What is most valuable?

  • Clustering
  • Multi-instance

For how long have I used the solution?

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

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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.

How are customer service and technical support?

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

How was the initial setup?

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

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

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner.
PeerSpot user
Consultant at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Enables us to distribute records, working with a mainframe system

What is our primary use case?

All our applications run around MQ. We run a backend system working with a mainframe and we distribute records via MQ. We are using it daily.

What is most valuable?

From the time I joined this company I have been working with IBM MQ. Until now I haven't seen any severe issues related to it. Most of the time it's running. That is the advantage of IBM MQ.

What needs improvement?

It could be easier to use.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with IBM MQ for close to 14 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It can scale but sometimes, in terms of volume, it is not able to handle a huge volume. We also have limitations of queues related to IBM MQ. We often need to handle a very big volume, but currently we do have limitations. If those kinds of limitations could be relaxed, it would help us to work better.

How was the initial setup?

I'm working on the development side. There is a setup team that is dedicated to working on implementations. I don't have enough hands-on in the configuration of MQ to comment on the setup.

What other advice do I have?

If you're looking for stability I would recommend using IBM MQ. But people, these days, are starting to work with Kafka, which is an open system. I don't have enough knowledge about Kafka to comment on it. I just work with MQ.

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
Senior Developer at a media company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Easy to manage, it's the most robust product I've worked with
Pros and Cons
  • "The first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage."
  • "The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box."

What is our primary use case?

In our company, it's the main hub for our whole CRM solution. MQ manages things through the Broker.

What is most valuable?

I like the whole idea. But the first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage.

What needs improvement?

The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box.

The reason that I'm emphasizing monitoring is that I used to work for the company that produced the administration and monitoring tools for IBM. There was a lot of competition and a lot of confusion in the market. When I moved to this company I actually used my previous experience and wrote my own tools. I am not much of a C# programmer, so I was struggling a bit. I know the concepts, but I was missing some straightforward support from IBM. They were selling it as a part of Tivoli, but you needed to implement the whole Tivoli infrastructure. If you had some other monitoring provider it was a bit of a pain. That is my concern here.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been certified as an MQ specialist since 1997 so I have about 23 years' experience in this field. I've been using it since version 2.0. Currently, I'm in production support and supporting version 9, mainly.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's stable. I'm working for a FT 500 company, a global company employing about 60,000 people, and we've been using this product ever since I joined the company in 2003. We haven't had a single major performance issue or crash.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's scalable. We have gradually increased our usage over time.

How are customer service and technical support?

I am satisfied with the support from IBM. To be honest, I used to be an IBM trainer for this product, so I know people there. The only issue I have is that if the product goes out of service, it's difficult to get PMR (Problem Management Report) for it. In production, a lot of businesses tend to stick with the older versions.

How was the initial setup?

I've been doing it for over 20 years, so it's straightforward to me. Beginners might struggle with the initial settings, like user rights and the basic stuff, but setting up MQ is fine.

What other advice do I have?

Before joining this company I was mainly consulting for various companies in Germany, and I noticed the core problem was always that in projects where MQ was implemented, they were targeting too low on the management food chain. You need that to go as high as possible because it changes the whole paradigm, your ways of thinking. A lot of the implementations were bad because they were partially patching some problems at the bottom level. The whole strategy was never oriented to messaging. My suggestion would be to be aware of that. Go global from the start. Don't address things partially.

There is a team of four people who supervise all MQ activities here.

I would rate IBM MQ at 10 out of 10, but ACE or Broker are between eight and nine, because of the lack of transparency.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Technical Lead at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Using the Appliance has enabled us to consolidate servers and licenses
Pros and Cons
  • "What is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up."
  • "The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset."

What is our primary use case?

Our use cases include ATM transactions where a customer, for example, inquires about balances. Transactions go from an ATM at a branch, using a Java application to take the information, and it connects into our mainframe, gets the balances, and goes back. 

We also use it for when customers go online using the internet itself for things like pre-approved home loans. We take the customers' information from the front-end and pop it into MQ to look up the customer's data in the bank itself — all of the databases — and then come back to the customer. 

It is also used in our mobile banking. MQ is connected to SAP in the background. MQ is in between, passing information to SAP and SAP will give the reply back on the mobile banking app, like when a customer asks for a one-time password.

How has it helped my organization?

We initially went with a single server or two servers. We used a lot of the mainframe and we used it on the one server. Then we realized that we were down to a single point of failure. What we did was we enabled something called queue sharing where you have multiple landing platforms, which lets you execute multiple applications in the background. And we're now able to use our HA failover quite extensively. It previously required one server to be down and there would be an effect on customer business. Now it requires at least three servers to be down before we start feeling the workload. And even then, we're hardly ever down because we have now spread the load using the queue shared clusters.

In terms of the solution helping to reduce the cost of integration, we're using what is called the MQ Appliance. Because the appliance connects multiple solutions in our bank to this platform, we don't need to procure more licenses or more servers or more infrastructure. So at the moment, we're using a very cost-effective model, compared to two to three years ago, which is when we started to consolidate servers. We had about 400 servers but we've reduced their number by moving them to the appliance. We've consolidated all of those server licenses and server infrastructures.

For example, we took a server that was front-end, using Java, and connected to the mainframe. We have that entire server's application queue, entry queue, and all the objects moved onto the appliance. And there is no cost to it. It's just a box. There's no operating system on it. We have MQ on it and MQ then connects things to the rest of the bank, so we save on the infrastructure, on server licenses, and MQ licenses. We've created a setup like that a few times already in our bank.

This process of integration has saved us a lot of time. Previously our projects would take at least three to four weeks. Now, once we have firewalls and security in place, and once we have an acceptable solution design in front of us, they take three to four days. From the time we design the solution until things are connected to the appliance, it takes a week. It's only fast because most of it is scripted. It's almost like a container.

What is most valuable?

What we find most valuable is the fact that we can decouple it from the application. If one side is down, but someone in the bank is serving a customer and needs to connect to an account, he can put in the information and wait. When the remote system comes up and connects, we can push messages with the push function. So what is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up.

We can also expand it across many servers with the cluster, using load balancing and failover. We use that extensively as well. The load balancing works absolutely wonderfully.

Overall, it makes us very flexible in the architecture we can use at the moment. When someone comes to us and says, "I need ABC," we can put together the correct solution for him with all our flexibility.

We use Red Hat from a server point of view. With our Linux box, MQ is on the box itself. We use that quite extensively as well. Inside of that, we find the shared HA function quite useful. It allows us to do HA really quickly, compared to how things were before.

What needs improvement?

At the moment we're very limited in the way we can interface with the cloud. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using it for 20 years now. I've been at the bank for 17 years and I used it before that as well.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the solution is very good. I would give it a nine out of 10. The main features are its reliability and availability and, as a messaging platform, it's very good in those areas.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset.

In terms of the number of business areas using it in our bank, there are about 15. A lot of the major ones use it, such as credit, operations/finance, home loans, and ATMs. 

How are customer service and technical support?

The bank has been very good in getting good technical resources to help us. There is a specific couple of people in IBM who know our architecture itself. We have what is called a value-add program where, when we have a problem or a service request, it will go through IBM but it will automatically land in the box of one of the experts who knows our architecture very well. We reach the same two people each time. We don't have to explain things to them.

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

We did not have a previous solution. Early on, we didn't have many options to choose from. A procurement person came along and told us that this is the best solution for us.

How was the initial setup?

The setup was very complex in the beginning: how we had to put it in, how we had to tune it, and how we had to fix it. There were so many parameters. It wasn't just a simple drop-in, deploy, and go. In addition, because certain applications work in a certain manner, it required a lot of tuning.

My team, on average, has 10 years of experience on MQ so at this stage we've come to the point where we can tune it fairly quickly. So while the initial setup wasn't simple and quick, it has become very quick.

The initial setup took us several weeks, if not a few months. We had to get IBM to help with things in the beginning. We had system issues then, but it has been stable since then.

What about the implementation team?

The IBM consultants we worked with were very good.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

MQ's features are very extensive compared to SQS on Amazon or messaging from Microsoft. Those solutions have basic features in there. They say, "This is what 90 percent of the use cases will use," whereas MQ is very robust in the way it's set up, in the way it works, and in the way it can be tuned. You have a lot of connections where you can connect thousands of users to the bank and thousands out of the bank as well.

It is definitely way ahead of all the other messaging platforms. It's like the "BMW" or "Mercedes" of messaging. The others will still do the work, but they're fairly average in what they do. They're very basic compared to what we do. Because we are a major bank, we have many different platforms and many languages, so we use it very extensively.

What other advice do I have?

You must be careful in that it must fit what you want it to do. A few years ago, we had a silo approach where everybody had their own IBM MQ and their own application support with their own teams. That got out of control. In the last few years we realized that you need to be careful about the deployment model you're using. And you need to make sure it's used for the proper use cases.

That's really the biggest lesson I've learned from using IBM MQ: You need to be very sure about what you want it to do.

I would advise that you talk to someone who knows about the solution and who is not biased. Set up a call with someone like me to look at the solution before you decide to go down this path and, similarly, before you decide to throw it out. Talk to someone who has at least seven years of experience with it and who can give you an unbiased opinion about how it works, and then make up your mind. People have come to us and we have said, "Based on what you are doing, we don't think MQ is the best solution for you. You should be looking at other solutions." And other times, we'll tell them that this is the perfect solution. 

The way MQ works is very good from a messaging point of view. There is very little that needs improving. MQ is very flexible and very tunable. We use it to transport hundreds of thousands of messages every day with absolutely no problems.

At the moment the solution is on-premise. But in the last two years, the bank has decided that it needs to go with the public cloud. So in the last two years, most of our development has gone towards decoupling MQ because a lot of the vendor applications were on the box where MQ was. We're working on the solution and decoupling everything so we can push toward the cloud itself. The solution's built-in connectors are more applicable to when we talk about cloud solutions. 

As for containerization, eventually we will go for it but, at the moment, we don't use it. It's difficult to work on a mainframe because of the way it's set up. But it's definitely something the guys will be using when we look at the Unix servers and other boxes.

For deployment and maintenance we have a team of eight people. We have three people on the mainframe and another three to four people for the appliance. They work with each other as well. On the Unix solution, which includes Linux, AIX, etc., we have another team of four, but all these teams overlap. The average upgrade won't take less than two people, but on the Unix box, upgrades are straightforward and someone can do it on his own.

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
it_user1140819 - PeerSpot reviewer
Integration Consultant at Dubai Technology Partners
Consultant
Provides us with several connection channels and name-based and user-based authentication
Pros and Cons
  • "The MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are mainly using it for communication, for connecting to multiple systems. Applications are putting their messages on MQ and, from MQ, we are reading them using IBM Integration Bus. We then process them and send back the response.

    What is most valuable?

    The MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity. 

    Other valuable features include the 

    • messaging format
    • message persistence
    • security features, including several connection channels and name-based and user-based authentication.

    What needs improvement?

    I had some issues earlier, two, three years back. I don't exactly remember them now.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been working with IBM MQ for eight years. We are currently trying to implement IBM MQ on OpenShift and cp4i. We have MQ on-premises and we are trying to migrate it to OpenShift, a container platform.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Stability-wise, it's very good. People have been using it for 15 to 20 years. MQ and IIB are the most stable products from IBM.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We can scale up and down anytime. There are no issues there. We have 20 to 30 internal applications connecting to middleware and all of them are connecting using the MQ protocol.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    We haven't had major issues, but whenever we have had an issue we have written to IBM and they have gotten back to us on a timely basis.

    How was the initial setup?

    The setup is straightforward. There is not much to create, it's a one-time setup, including configuring the high-availability. That is the main thing. The parameters create the queues. It takes about 10 to 15 seconds for each queue.

    In addition, we had IIB, the IBM Integration Bus deployment, including message flows and DB scripts, etc. So the deployment was not only MQ. In deploying IIB flows, we had some queue creation, server connections, and channel creation. Overall, it was about 80 percent IIB deployment and 20 percent MQ deployment.

    We had two people involved: one guy from the support team and one guy from admin. For maintenance, in the sense of the application support, we have four team members but we are handling multiple applications, not only MQ.

    What about the implementation team?

    We deployed it ourselves.

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

    Although I'm not involved with costs in our company, IBM products, in general, have high licensing costs and support costs are too high. A lot of people have started using open-source, like Kubernetes and microservices. There is also Apache ActiveMQ. There are many other products out there.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would tell people to use this, except that the pricing and support costs are too high.

    I would rate MQ at eight out of 10. 

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner.
    PeerSpot user
    Sunil Sahoo - PeerSpot reviewer
    Manager at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    We don't lose messages in transit and we can store messages and forward them when required
    Pros and Cons
    • "Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."
    • "I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are a bank whose core banking system is not so advanced. It is still running on an AS/400 system. Credit Card system is are deployed on IBM mainframes. About 70 to 80 percent of the bank's core systems rely on IBM AS/400 and mainframes. The enterprise service bus is used in conjunction with MQ to break synchronous web service /TCP calls into asynchronous MQ calls and expose them a web services-based or API-based service for both internal and external customers. 

    As part of enterprise architecture principles, we have enforced all connectivity to be service/ interface based by using ESB, MFT or API. Minimize the point to point connectivity.

    We are using dedicated IBM power/pure-app servers to run IBM Integration Bus, IBM MQ, and WebSphere Application Server. These are the three components being used for the bank's enterprise service bus.

    How has it helped my organization?

    People have started using the likes of Kafka, Spark and other new messaging technologies. But when you take the likes of banks into consideration, which mostly are running on mainframes and AS/400, implementing advanced technologies are not an easy job. Getting an MQ-certified guy is not that difficult in the ASEAN market. There are a lot of certified professionals. That's one of the reasons we still use MQ for most of our messaging. We are still looking at open-source deployments but we have not yet implemented anything like that because of the knowledge GAP & dependency on the existing products. We do not have a dedicated team to take on that task yet.

    With IBM MQ still in the bank, and a dedicated team which has expertise in it, we really cut down the time-to-market, from a few months to a few weeks. The development framework is already there. If business comes up with requirements, technology team already know what needs to be done. And by building the in-house team, it gives us the facility where we don't need to ask the IBM guys or other vendors in the market to help us every time we have a new requirement.

    Another way MQ has improved the way our organization functions is customer notification. Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. There are requirements for notifying customers on a real-time base & also for each and every payment sometimes, once a day. These are be enabled with the help of MQ.

    In addition, there are fewer failures during the end-to-end payment process. MQ comes in very handy because we don't lose messages in transit (message persistence). It gives us the ability to store and forward messages when required. We heavily rely on MQ for these kinds of requirements.

    Also, we have certain applications that want to receive the messages in both production and the disaster-recovery data center at the same time. Without MQ in the picture, it would have been very difficult for us to configure that. MQ Publish subscribe capability is very helpful in that scenario.

    MQ has helped to reduce integration costs, mostly by acquiring the enterprise license of MQ. We can actually set up multiple MQ servers in the same environment and each MQ server is dedicated to a particular application. We also use MQ up to a level where the messages are coming from multiple host systems and they go back to a single channel. When written back, the response goes to the exact host that had sent the request (Message Affinity). Without a tool and without a messaging architecture that is as good as MQ's, it would take a lot of time in hard-coding to achieve that. Prior to the team being set up and having these frameworks in place, it took roughly two to three months to deliver any of these integrations. Now it takes three to four weeks. It has helped reduce the effort and man-hours by half.

    What is most valuable?

    We have been using the normal messaging along with channel authorization. 

    At certain times — although not in this bank, in my previous experience — we had used the message authorization on top of the queue. That meant that the moment a user tried to write a message it would be authorized before it was written. 

    In the ESB architecture, MQ is used to decouple synchronous consumer specific web services calls from the host system calls, by implementing state management. Request and response message matching rely on MQ Message ID & Correlation ID (MQMD header properties).

    Message load balancing being implemented using MQ or achieving high throughput, while Message affinity ensures response messages are propagated to the very same host system which had generated the request message.

    MQ publish subscribe feature being used to for notification where multiple instance of one or more applications can subscribe to the same topic at different time. 

    Message expiry features ensures the redundant or unwanted messages are expired automatically from the MQ based on the settings. This feature is being used at times to ensure no duplication of payments.

    Message persistence feature ensures the message availability even after any planned/unplanned downtime.

    MQMFT feature ensures files are delivered asynchronously and complete file transfers are automated.

    MQ authorization can help to ensure high level of security in accessing the messages from a MQ server or sending messages via MQ channels between two or more systems. 

    What needs improvement?

    Day-to-day, I don't really see anything much that we are lacking, but I have never really compared MQ with other products to see what it lacks.

    I am well aware of the way that IBM sells the suite of products. But I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka.

    One of the other improvements that I would like to see from MQ is for it to be containerized. It may already have that functionality.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have worked with IBM MQ for more than 10 years. I started using it in 2006. Recently, in the last three to four years, I have not had any work in the development area. I have moved on to enterprise architecture, so I don't really get a chance to use the solution every day. I haven't used it in the last three years.

    I do read up on the new features when I get a chance to read, but I don't exactly have hands-on now-a-days. I now guide the team when they have issues, on things like how to set it up, how to have particular architectures on MQ. I still consult on it and I'm still familiar with it.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is stable.

    We have only had issues with the IBM GPFS File System, but that is a different product. We had an issue when we wanted to have an Active-Active deployment architecture across our production and disaster recovery site. We wanted the same MQ server to fail over to the disaster recovery site and come up from the state in which it went down on the production site. To achieve that we need a synchronous file system that is able to replicate the same data on the other side.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    We haven't had any scalability issues with MQ. We are running on a scalable hardware platform with a goal of virtualizing deployment up to multiple cores, and it can add on more and more compute and RAM when required.

    For at least the next five years we are sticking with the existing implementation, while we are looking to implement new features, such as containerization.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Our in-house support members are all certified. Most of them have 5 to 10 years of hands-on experience. They don't fall back on IBM for day-to-day support/issues. But if there is a Severity-1, they do log a problem ticket for further expert advises from IBM.

    We have only had one issue that I can recall from the last four or five years, to do with the file synchronization. To figure it out, it took a few days.

    Overall, the support has been good. As IBM doesn't have a lot of resources in Malaysia, they rely on India or Singapore region for support sometimes.

    How was the initial setup?

    I am MQ version 6, & 7 -certified solutions architect & system administrator. So I find the setup to be very easy. I have been using MQ since very early of my career, and I was also with IBM for quite some time. So for me, it's very straightforward. The installers come with a nice, quick-setup guide, and most of the time, after the training, users can go set up their own MQ.

    The amount of time it would take to bring it to production depends on the scope of the services. If I just have to install MQ, it is not more than an hour. But if I have to install MQ for specific servers, I would probably have to take account of the log size, its location, and what the volume is per day or per week, availability aspects, so it would take a bit longer.

    Most of the time, when we implement MQ, we implement it along with other products. It depends on the use case. If you just want to query the server to get the information, I would recommend that to be asynchronous because inquiries are huge in volume. If the use case is payments, it could be defined as synchronous mode, and within the flow we could still break it into two or three parts.

    From the design point of view, it is still pretty straightforward, depending on what licensing model you want to go for. If you want to use one MQ server with multiple clients it's doable, but if you have more critical systems running, then you should go for multiple MQ servers so that you have a dedicated server for each particular application. Those are the guiding principles that we use internally for projects to follow.

    For deployment, we have written our own scripts. We are mostly relying on AIX/ Linux server. Our scripts are pretty much standard to do things like create/ change queue, channels and it's properties, shut down, restart the MQ services. All these are already scripted, so for our support team it takes them a few minutes to run through them, one after the other, and wait for scripts to be executed.

    What about the implementation team?

    We have a fully dedicated team in-house to support MQ. There are teams that can help. TCS is one of them and IBM itself is one of them. And there are a few local vendors in the market that are quite proficient in it.

    We have a support/ maintenance team of four pax and we are running 200 to 300 services on MQ. The solution doesn't exactly provide a user interface to the business user. The solution is more of a technology layer to support applications and we have 15 to 20 applications that are connected via ESB & MQ.

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

    We have a multi-year OIO (open infrastructure offering) with IBM and if there is any additional licensing required it gets deducted from the OIO. We have been using IBM's other services as well.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We have been looking at some competitors; for example, TIBCO Messaging and MuleSoft from Salesforce. One difference I have seen is that TIBCO is already a containerized edition. I have yet to discuss with IBM MQ if it is available on container. Another thing TIBCO has is that its messaging framework comes with a package for Kafka support as well as plugins for MQ connectivity. It allows you to connect to MQ or to Kafka for messaging.

    We are also going to look at the IBM API-led integration. We have been running IBM products for some years so we may want to compare & see how these gets compared with their counter-parts.

    What other advice do I have?

    Overall, MQ is good, capability-wise. You still need a messaging platform and MQ is quite a reliable messaging platform. I have not seen hiccups using MQ across multiple environments in the bank. I have been using it since 2006 and I have never experienced any issues with the product itself. The guidelines of the product, the way it is used, the way things are done, are pretty self-explanatory. There are multiple blogs/ online helps available and there is a lot of help available from experts around the world.

    Have a look at the features. If they complement the requirements you have, go ahead with it. If you are very technical and want to understand more about the open-source tools and features, that may require a notable learning curve.

    The product has been around for a long time. It's probably time to see what MQ is going to add to its features. We have not started using IBM Cloud Pak with Red Hat OpenShift yet. We are also looking at using containerization but probably it may take some time.

    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

    Hi Sunil, great review. On the two things you wished IBM MQ had...

    Containerised IBM MQ, this is something it's had for a number of years, from simple developer images on DockerHub https://hub.docker.com/r/ibmco... to fully supported and certified images and Operator support in IBM Cloud Pak for Integration and OpenShift https://www.ibm.com/support/kn...


    Connectivity to Kafka, this is also something you're able to do, either using the open source connectors https://github.com/ibm-messagi...https://github.com/ibm-messagi... or within Cloud Pak for Integration when connecting to IBM's Kafka offering, IBM Event Streams https://ibm.github.io/event-st...

    Sap Financial Accounting Senior Consultant at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
    MSP
    Stable product, and installation and version upgrades are easy
    Pros and Cons
    • "RabbitMQ and Kafka require more steps for setup than IBM MQ. Installation of the IBM product is very simple."
    • "You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."

    What is our primary use case?

    For 90 percent of our applications, we are using IBM MQ for a point-to-point setup, from one application to another application. It is like a passage between them. For the other 10 percent of our applications, we are using topic subscriptions.

    It's deployed on-premises. We have tried it on Docker Containers as well, where we have an instance. We haven't done a cluster setup using Docker and Kubernetes. 

    What is most valuable?

    It is very stable. We haven't seen any failures.

    What needs improvement?

    You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000. Also, the maximum message length defaults to 4 MB. If it is more than that it should be able to increase and allow whatever the particular size of the message is into the queue.

    In terms of additional features, I would like to see it be lightweight and go to the cloud easily, and dynamic scaling should be added.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using IBM MQ for the last five years at my current company but I also used it in different agencies, so overall I have used it for about seven years.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It is scalable but we have to do it manually. There is no automation for scaling it.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Support is very good. It is very fast. If an issue is Priority 1 they will respond very quickly and call you.

    How was the initial setup?

    It is pretty easy to set up. The installation takes less than five minutes for each server. People can learn IBM MQ in one week.

    Even a version upgrade can be done easily. Including doing backups and installation, it can be completed in 10 to 15 minutes. Even RabbitMQ and Kafka require more steps for setup than IBM MQ. Installation of the IBM product is very simple. 

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

    For individual projects, IBM MQ may cost more. Here, we are using it globally. It is distributed around the world for our operations, so cost-wise it is less for us. But if you go with individual licenses, the cost of IBM is much more.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We are also slowly moving forward into using Kafka.

    We calculated the costs for our total environment of going with RabbitMQ, and if we went with priority support for RabbitMQ versus the cost of IBM MQ, there was almost no difference in the costs. Unless we went fully open-source, we would not save anything with RabbitMQ.

    What other advice do I have?

    My advice to someone who is looking into using IBM MQ would depend on their budget, the application criticality, etc. If applications are less critical, you can go with open-source products. 

    Apache Kafka is growing quickly. People are using it on almost every project. The future will be Apache Kafka only and there might be some RabbitMQ use as well. But I see that Kafka is gaining the most. IBM MQ won’t support large streams of data but Kafka will support large streams of data. For example, for Big Data projects, will only go with Kafka.

    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
    Project Manager/System Architect/Senior Mainframe System Engineer/Integration Specialist at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
    Reseller
    Highly scalable; provides different ways to establish high availability and workloads
    Pros and Cons
    • "It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters."
    • "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."

    What is our primary use case?

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

    What is most valuable?

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

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

    What needs improvement?

    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.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    15 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It is very stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    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. 

    How are customer service and technical support?

    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.

    How was the initial setup?

    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.

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

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

    What other advice do I have?

    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).

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner and reseller.
    PeerSpot user
    freelance at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
    Real User
    Top 10Leaderboard
    Provides our clients with performance and stability, while requiring little support
    Pros and Cons
    • "IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team."
    • "What could be improved is the high-availability. The way MQ works is that it separates the high-availability from the workload balance. The scalability should be easier. If something happens so that the messages are not available on each node, scalability is only possible for the workload balance."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use it for message transfer, mostly for a queue of the messages. Sometimes, we also consider using the topic space solution. But it is mostly for transferring messages between two applications. The applications are located in a different country, so it is also used for communication of MQ to MQ. 

    What is most valuable?

    What I like the most about IBM MQ is the 

    • reliability
    • robustness.

    What needs improvement?

    What could be improved is the high-availability. The way MQ works is that it separates the high-availability from the workload balance. The scalability should be easier. If something happens so that the messages are not available on each node, scalability is only possible for the workload balance. That's a big difference. And the application must be prepared to consume from each node so that it doesn't lose a message. Otherwise, you lose the ordering of the messages.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using IBM MQ for more than five years. We're currently using version 8 and we are switching to version 9.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    MQ is known for its stability.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    The technical support depends on the kind of request you have. IBM is a big organization, and sometimes it takes time, while other times it's very quick. But what is great is the documentation and they even define some bugs. They have a willingness to describe these as an APAR (authorized program analysis report) on IBM pages and they're easy to find for the solution.

    How was the initial setup?

    The installation is easy but the configuration could be complicated because you have to specify a lot of stuff, like queues. It could be a little bit complicated to configure if you have some specific scenarios. For a simple scenario it's easy, but when you have somewhat more complicated scenarios — for example, when you have a hybrid or you need to support some specific security requirements which you use to implement custom components — then it's not easy.

    The time it takes to deploy depends on what type of clusters you need. For deployment for testing purposes, where you do not need any cluster, it can really be done in one day, maximum. It's not that difficult. But if you need to deploy a cluster, like a Veritas Cluster, and to prepare the workload balance, it can take days, with system testing etc. You have to combine a lot of other components.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would recommend it. If you're looking for a traditional queuing system, IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team. It depends on the number of instances, of course. But MQ is not difficult to support. It's mostly to solve communication issues for applications and to determine what type of communication you prefer: the traditional MQ or via JMS, where you have to put it into the headers. But if you pass it, it is very stable after that and has very good performance.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner.
    PeerSpot user
    Administrator at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Stable, reliable, and scalable, and helps keep our data safe
    Pros and Cons
    • "It is stable, reliable, and scalable."
    • "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."

    What is most valuable?

    Everything looks fine. It is 

    • stable
    • reliable 
    • scalable.

    What needs improvement?

    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.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The stability looks good.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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

    How was the initial setup?

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

    What other advice do I have?

    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.

    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
    Eduardo Cano - PeerSpot reviewer
    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
      Software Engineer at Sita
      Real User
      Makes it easy to solve problems in our diverse environment

      What is our primary use case?

      We have a diverse distributed environment that includes Z/OS, Microsoft Windows, Solaris, Linux, and zLinux. We use multiple programming languages and different databases.

      How has it helped my organization?

      IBM MQ was found to be easy to implement and operate. It became the defacto standard, and integration problems moved from an operational issue to application solutions.

      What is most valuable?

      The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API. This solution is simple and very diverse.

      What needs improvement?

      I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution.

      For how long have I used the solution?

      Fifteen Years.
      Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
      PeerSpot user
      MQ Engineer DevOp at ING
      Real User
      It is easy to set up and has good instrumentation

      What is our primary use case?

      IBM MQ is used heavily in all of the companies I have worked for, mostly in the financial industry. It is easy to set up and has good instrumentation.

      How has it helped my organization?

      The product was already installed which is not surprising as it was first published around 1993.

      What is most valuable?

      To be able to programmatically send information stored in 'messages' and send them securely, as well as the ability to check their contents and statistics when things go wrong.

      What needs improvement?

      • Better testing by the supplier is needed
      • Ability to send to a group of queues without the need to use pubsub and without the need to write one's own programmes.

      For how long have I used the solution?

      More than five years.
      Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
      PeerSpot user
      Principal Solution Specialist at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
      Real User
      The on-premise installation is very valuable to us.
      Pros and Cons
        • "I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop."
        • "I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially."

        What is our primary use case?

        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.

        How has it helped my organization?

        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.

        What is most valuable?

        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.

        What needs improvement?

        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.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        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.

        How is customer service and technical support?

        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.

        How was the initial setup?

        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. 

        What was our ROI?

        We always must consider:

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

        What other advice do I have?

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

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        User
        It improves reliability and guarantees that messages are not lost

        What is our primary use case?

        I have installed a cluster MQ in a bank using HACMP for the failover solution on AIX. I have also configured the product accordingly.

        How has it helped my organization?

        It improves reliability and guarantees that messages are not lost. This is a prerequisite for the online payment process.

        What is most valuable?

        Asynchronous messaging processing between the front-end and our legacy system using an enterprise service bus (ESB).

        For how long have I used the solution?

        More than five years.

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

        To implement such an IBM solution, a company has to pay a lot in term of licensing and consultancy.  A pricing model might be a better option.

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        Pavel Shcherbukha - PeerSpot reviewer
        Team Leader of the Development Team at IBM/IT-Innovation
        Real User
        Reliable integration between servers is valuable. This solution helps us scale web services and organize parallel execution

        What is our primary use case?

        We use IBM MQ as a reliable way of integrating different applications. Our transaction service operates using IBM MQ for organizing the asynchronous interaction between different applications and the core banking system. It is easy to organize parallel reading and writing, and you can easily link two IBM MQ servers using the remote queue feature. We also use IBM MQ in web services which are developed using IBM Integration Bus. MQ helps us scale web services and organize parallel execution.

        How has it helped my organization?

        IBM MQ helps us scale our applications and balance our applications' performance. MQ is quite reliable. In some cases, our application became simpler and more reliable simultaneously.

        What is most valuable?

        Reliable integration between MQ servers. IT helps us create flexible integration solutions.

        What needs improvement?

        MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        One to three years.
        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        VP - Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd at Accelya World SLU
        User
        Ensures fast, reliable message transmissions without unplanned failures

        What is our primary use case?

        We use IBM MQ for message transmission between our customers, and their agents or global message service providers, such as SITA or ARINC, for tier one critical applications.

        How has it helped my organization?

        Applications are time critical, and IBM MQ has played a significant role in ensuring fast, reliable message transmissions. With IBM MQ in place, fear of messages getting lost in the case of an unplanned failure is almost none.

        What is most valuable?

        • Data integrity, reliability and security are very important to our business.
        • No messages are lost, and recovery is good in case of any serious failures.
        • No dependency on the end party service's run status.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        One to three years.

        How is customer service and technical support?

        No technical issues come to mind.

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

        In terms of cost, IBM MQ is slightly on the higher side.

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        Architect at Franklin Templeton
        User
        We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses

        What is our primary use case?

        We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses.

        How has it helped my organization?

        Adding concentrators was great improvement, but it lacks the SonicMQ CAA (continuous availability architecture). 

        What is most valuable?

        The most valuable features are queue managers and CCDT, which is the common purpose of most client applications.

        What needs improvement?

        SonicMQ CAA (continuous availability architecture) functionality on auto failover and data persistence should be made available without a shared drive, as it exists in multi-instance queue managers.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        More than five years.

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

        IBM MQ appliance has pricing options, but they are costly. 

        Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer:
        PeerSpot user
        it_user885045 - PeerSpot reviewer
        Consulting BPM Architect at Ivory Software Corp
        User
        The most reliable product that we have ever used which run everywhere in the world
        Pros and Cons
        • "It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem."
        • "It could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign."

        What is our primary use case?

        Enterprise messaging with international clustering in 120 data centers in 82 countries around the world. 

        How has it helped my organization?

        It is the most reliable product that we have ever used.  

        What is most valuable?

        It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem. 

        What needs improvement?

        There is not much room for improvement, except it could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign. 

        For how long have I used the solution?

        More than five years.

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

        99.999 percent availability for less than a penny per message over the past 25 years.  IBM MQ is the cheapest software in the IBM software portfolio, and it is one of the best.

        What other advice do I have?

        IBM MQ is one of the oldest, most underrated products in history. 

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        PeerSpot user
        Sr. Solution Architect or Program Manager at a financial services firm
        Vendor
        Helps integrate between applications, reduce rework, by reusing existing components
        Pros and Cons
        • "Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications."
        • "Integrates between distributed systems: For example, it can help integrate processing between mainframe, client-server, web-based applications by integrating the messages, supporting Service Oriented Architecture."
        • "the level of training as well as product marketing for this product are not that great. You rarely find a good training institute that provides training. Many of the architects in several organization are neither aware of the product nor interested in using it. IBM should provide good training on products like this."

        How has it helped my organization?

        This product has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications, such as mainframe applications.

        At Citibank, for example, they could utilize the already working components in the legacy system and integrate them with web, mobile, and tablet-based applications, instead of developing three separate applications in each of these technologies. This tremendously reduced efforts, costs, errors, and timeline.

        What is most valuable?

        • Can process large amount of messages in a small amount of time.
        • Integrates between distributed systems: For example, it can help integrate processing between mainframe, client-server, web-based applications by integrating the messages, supporting Service Oriented Architecture.
        • It helps avoid rework by using already developed and working features of the application.

        What needs improvement?

        Many customers are gravitating towards open source products such as RabbitMQ, or going for a web-based package.

        Also, the level of training as well as product marketing for this product are not that great. You rarely find a good training institute that provides training. Many of the architects in several organization are neither aware of the product nor interested in using it. IBM should provide good training on products like this to me and other candidates and post us to the US or UK where we can provide excellent support to the clients using the product.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        More than five years.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

        Not applicable.

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        Not applicable.

        How are customer service and technical support?

        Level of support with IBM WebSphere products, including IBM WebSphere Commerce server, IBM WebSphere Portal server, and IBM Websphere Integration server is fantastic.

        For clients such as Target, IBM provided excellent support for IBM CICS Web Services, as well as IBM WebSphere Integration server, by having a dedicated IBM team in the USA that provided support.

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

        Not applicable.

        How was the initial setup?

        Setup has to be done by the team from IBM. Client just needs to enjoy the excellent support.

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

        Pricing could be better, as with all IBM products. But their performance in production, along with security and scalability, will pay returns in the long run.

        Which other solutions did I evaluate?

        There are other products available, such as TIBCO ESB, and we have many
        clients who are using that.

        What other advice do I have?

        Middleware family of products such as WebSphere MQ, MB, TIBCO ESB, IBM ESB, and MuleSoft ESB offer excellent choices in architecture and re-engineering of software architecture, and should be the first choice, instead of building from scratch. If anyone recommends rebuilding from scratch, such an architect should not be working for your organization.

        IBM needs to protect its products, as well as the engineers and architects who recommend those products.

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        Gurvijay Bhatti - PeerSpot reviewer
        Senior Solutions Architect at Department of Justice
        Real User
        We value this product's reliability, simplicity, and pricing.
        Pros and Cons
        • "We have implemented business to business transactions over MQ messaging. The guaranteed and once only delivery ensures business integrity."
        • "It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."

        What is our primary use case?

        We use MQ for guaranteed delivery and once only delivery of important business to business transactions.

        We use persistence messaging to ensure messages are not lost in case machine is restarted.

        How has it helped my organization?

        We have implemented business to business transactions over MQ messaging. The guaranteed and once only delivery ensures business integrity.

        What is most valuable?

        Reliability of message transmissions and ability to replay messages in case message ends up in backout queues.

        What needs improvement?

        It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        More than five years.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

        We did not encounter any issues with stability.

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

        How are customer service and technical support?

        The technical support is good.

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

        We have always used MQ.

        How was the initial setup?

        The setup was straightforward for simple usage. Load balancing is more complex.

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

        I think the pricing is reasonable, especially with IIB as a part of it.

        Which other solutions did I evaluate?

        We did not evaluate any alternative solutions.

        What other advice do I have?

        Get a good MQ expert to get it right from the beginning.

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        it_user632745 - PeerSpot reviewer
        IT Unit Head at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
        Real User
        One of the most important features is data persistence. Some of the monitoring on some of the MQs did not meet our needs.

        What is most valuable?

        One of the most important features is data persistence. Anytime there is a failure or an unexpected outage, the data is still there. That is one of the biggest benefits of MQ on WebSphere.

        What needs improvement?

        One of the things we did not see meeting our need was the lack of integrated monitoring for both IIB flows and MQ's. You have to use different tools for that, i.e. - MQ Explorer for the queues and IIB toolkit/web viewer for IIB apps and flows. If we could integrate the monitoring of both the flows and the queues in one product, that would be great.

        Similarly to deploy the flows we need to use IIB toolkit and then to run MQ Scripts – we need to use a different tool. Since IIB and MQ goes hand in hand – it would be nice if the tools were integrated as well.

        For how long have I used the solution?

        3 years.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

        The stability is pretty good, so far. We had some challenges with some of the clustering during initial setup. But once that was done properly, it was quite stable.

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        That's one of the shining features of MQ, that scalability. It is very scalable.

        How are customer service and technical support?

        Technical support is good.

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

        This is something that I inherited. There was a legacy system that was already using MQ.

        How was the initial setup?

        There are a lot of things that MQ can do, so the configuration setup needs some involvement.

        What other advice do I have?

        Engage IBM and MQ experts from the beginning on the architecting and the proof-of-concept. There are a lot of configurations and a lot of things that IIB can do. If you do not do properly early on, then it's going to be difficult to find those things, go back, and make those changes.

        One of the most important things when selecting a vendor is definitely their ability to meet our functional needs. On top of that, we are looking for partners that are going to be around in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. We want dependability, longevity, and somebody who's going to be around when we need them.

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        it_user671943 - PeerSpot reviewer
        Principal Middleware Engineer / Automation Specialist at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
        Real User
        Reliability is the most valuable feature. Technical support is excellent.
        Pros and Cons
        • "Reliability is the most valuable feature. MQ is used to support critical business applications."
        • "The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM)."

        What is most valuable?

        Reliability is the most valuable feature. MQ is used to support critical business applications.

        What needs improvement?

        The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM). The original IM data location used for installing the base must also be used for the installation of product upgrades and patches. In the Network Deployment edition, upgrades and patches need to be installed in the deployment manager and node agent profiles. I would improve this area by eliminating the need for the IBM Installation Manager.

        What do I think about the stability of the solution?

        We have not had stability issues.

        What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

        We have not had scalability issues.

        How are customer service and technical support?

        Technical support is excellent.

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

        We had no previous solution.

        How was the initial setup?

        Setup was complex. It requires a lot of components to be configured.

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

        Use the new and lightweight version (Liberty) to lower licensing costs.

        Which other solutions did I evaluate?

        We didn’t look at other solutions.

        What other advice do I have?

        Use the new and lightweight version (Liberty) to lower licensing costs. It is also easier to upgrade/maintain.

        Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
        PeerSpot user
        it_user725142 - PeerSpot reviewer
        it_user725142Middleware Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
        Vendor

        It seems this review is for WebsphereAS and not WebsphereMQ. Liberty is not MQ and I do not think MQ can be installed with Installation Manager. I have always used install or rpm or Windows installer to install MQ.

        PeerSpot user
        Manager - Enterprise Information at a government with 51-200 employees
        Vendor
        The message queue and the integration with many development platforms/languages are the most valuable features.
        Pros and Cons
        • "The message queue and the integration with any development platform/language, i.e., NET and Java, are the most valuable features."

          What is most valuable?

          The message queue and the integration with any development platform/language, i.e., NET and Java, are the most valuable features.

          How has it helped my organization?

          We are the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission where our mandate is to register and regulate companies and intellectual property (patents, designs, trademarks, and copyrights).

          In South Africa, a company that wants to do business with the government or a privately owned company is required to also register for taxes through the South African Revenue Services (SARS).

          We have integrated our registration process with SARS to seamlessly register both the company and the taxes upon registration of a company with CIPC using the near real time concept.

          We created an interface between two state-owned companies. We replaced the FTP/SFTP process that was cumbersome and often difficult to synchronize the two databases between CIPC & SARS.

          Now that we utilize IBM WebSphere MQ, we are never down. Even if the MQ server crashes, messages are queued and can be recovered.

          This extends the use of this product to allow seamless integration with all of our stakeholders for data exchange purposes.

          What needs improvement?

          I don’t know of any room for improvement.

          For how long have I used the solution?

          I have been using WebSphere since 2013.

          What do I think about the stability of the solution?

          We have not had any issues with stability.

          What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

          We have not had any issues with scalability.

          How are customer service and technical support?

          We've never encountered any critical issues that required technical expertise except when the server crashed. We had to get an IBM WebSphere MQ accredited service provider to reconfigure the application. We never experienced any other pressing issues after that.

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

          We used FTP/SFTP before. We switched to IBM WebSphere MQ because we needed a robust, scalable message processing mechanism with the ability to integrate with different technologies.

          How was the initial setup?

          The setup was straightforward. Network connectivity is easy as long as you understand your solution design requirements.

          I had to take over the project with limited knowledge about the product. I can safely say today that I support the solution with minimum assistance from the software vendor. I was not trained, nor did I have skills transferred to me to enable me to support the product

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

          Since this was not the initial direction CIPC was embarking on, we had the minimal license requirement. The cost was less than the value we would be getting out of this product. There's an annual license with support and it is reasonable cost wise.

          Which other solutions did I evaluate?

          We did not evaluate other options. This was recommended to us by SARS. This currently is their standard of integrating with SARS.

          What other advice do I have?

          IBM WebSphere MQ is robust, scalable, and reliable. You just have to clearly articulate your requirements and understand your needs so that you can realize the benefits of using the product. Our lesson learned is to always plan wide and implement narrow. This is the "phase approach."

          Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
          PeerSpot user
          Meir Joffe - PeerSpot reviewer
          Meir JoffeMarketing Research Analyst at PeerSpot
          Consultant

          Thanks for the review Sello. I was curious what is your opinion of the monitoring capabilities, and if your organization felt the need to use additional tools for that? Thanks, Meir

          it_user632727 - PeerSpot reviewer
          Technology Architect at Accenture
          Real User
          MQ is one of the integrations that we use for the z Systems to the open system connectivity.

          What is most valuable?

          MQ is one of the key integrations that we use for the z Systems to the open system connectivity. It helps us to transform the systems from the legacy enrollment to the latest technologies, as well. I'm part of the legacy transformations team and it provides really easy migrations, when it comes to integration with MQ. Any other integrations are a little bit challenging for us.

          How has it helped my organization?

          As I mentioned elsewhere, it provides one of the most seamless integrations that we can do both from open systems to z Systems or vice versa. These are the major benefits that we see. Since we are major resellers for IBM products, we generally look for transformation from z Systems to open systems and this tool helps us in transforming those.

          What needs improvement?

          They need to provide more and more platform integrations because I'm not sure what are the latest upgrades, in terms of MQ as of today. The latest integrations are going to take place in different cloud environments. So, I am not quite sure as to how seamless it can be integrated with other environments and I need to check that. This is also part of my job exercise, that I need to do every time.

          What do I think about the stability of the solution?

          There were not many stability issues, for sure. MQ is predominately a stable product, right from the z System days. I started out my career with z Systems, so we used MQ with part of the integration and it really helped us.

          How are customer service and technical support?

          A long time ago, and not in the recent past, we did experience some issues with the technical support.

          Our company has its own IBM center of excellence, where we have all of the required expertise within our organization, predominantly for this product. In addition, we have partnership support that we are getting every time from IBM.

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

          We haven't faced a situation where we needed to invest in a new solution, predominately since our clients already have MQ. We are just transforming, upgrading or optimizing those versions; we are only doing this type of work.

          How was the initial setup?

          The setup is moderate; it's not that complex. Recently, we are working for one of the Microsoft technologies transformation, i.e., from the legacy Microsoft technologies to the latest Microsoft technologies and that integrates with some of the z Systems.They are using MQ as the integration layer and even there, it was a very seamless integration for us. It's not too complicated nor very simple either. It is at the moderate level, which for integration is anticipated.

          What other advice do I have?

          There is quite a good amount of documentation that you can get either from the IBM Redbooks or from the IBM support websites. Also, if you are partners with our company, then you will get the required support.

          Before installing, I would request you to do a quick analysis and go through the end-to-end process, as to what are your requirements and how to configure this product up-front, i.e., instead of directly installing it and then, trying to configure it on the fly.

          In general, when selecting a vendor, we look for more and more support.

          Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
          PeerSpot user
          it_user632718 - PeerSpot reviewer
          Application Architect at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
          Vendor
          It has alerts built-in that tell our operation that queues are getting filled up and they need some attention.
          Pros and Cons
          • "We use our routing feature when the request is coming from the business application. The request goes to the distributive side and it is routed to the right claim instance."

            What is most valuable?

            The way that we use MQ is just for messaging. We have various systems in our organization and we have various applications.

            We use our routing feature when the request is coming from the business application. The request goes to the distributive side and it is routed to the right claim instance.

            We use MQ in between for messaging. We process the messages we receive and we send the responses back to whoever sent us the message.

            That person or application basically picks up the response and distributes it to whoever requested it. The way we design the environment of that instance can leverage any of the environments.

            How has it helped my organization?

            Because we are a 24/7 company, we always want to have a robust solution where we can keep getting messages. There should be no delays, outages, or blockages. Those messages should be coming in seamlessly, transparently, and efficiently.

            The way that we envision the future of our organization is that MQ works well. We have MQ local and MQ distributed and we're leveraging both.

            What needs improvement?

            The way that we are using the solution may not be utilizing the full version of MQ. However, what is available right now works well for us. We are not looking to expand.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It's very robust. It's stable. Whenever we have a situation where our listener is down for some reason, MQ has the capacity to put those messages into some queues where we can retrieve them later on.

            It has those alerts built-in. It tells our operation that the queues are getting filled up and they need some attention. We have those kinds of features turned on.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It is very scalable.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Customer Service:

            Our team is very well versed in MQ and they're always able to solve all the problems. In fact, last year we moved to iApps, and they were able to work with IBM. They were able to solve whatever roadblocks we had.

            Technical Support:

            We have our own support team. Whenever we have some situation, we go to them. If they're unable to solve it, then they reach out to IBM.

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

            I'm not aware of the pricing. That's something others deal with, but they do tell me that it is expensive. I don't know how much it is.

            We have an ELA contract with IBM and everything is included. It's not like MQ has a different price, and different products have difference prices. Everything is done as part of one big contract

            What other advice do I have?

            Customers need to look at their design and carefully select the product. They should look at the product capabilities and change the design accordingly to work with the product.

            Don't expect a lot of things from the product. You need to trust your design, your solution, and your app. This product just helps you to move around and navigate your data.

            Your product has to be solid to process those elements. If I am unable to put the message in a queue, then if MQ sends me a message and I'm unable to pull the message and process it, then I would not blame MQ. It is my product or app that is not working. The solution is just an interface. It's just messaging. It's sending and retrieving messages, and that's it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632676 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Enterprise Integration Architect at a financial services firm
            Vendor
            By allowing messaging to integrate with some third-party solutions, we are able to integrate legacy events, captured ATM and credit card transactions, into a digital web dashboard.

            What is most valuable?

            We use MQ as part of the core of our enterprise information bus. We started that journey in 2009. We have it both on the mainframe and in the mid-range. For us, by allowing messaging to integrate with some of our third-party solutions, like for web banking and so on, we are able to create an information highway that took in the legacy events, captured ATM and credit card transactions, and integrates that into a digital web dashboard.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It provides a better customer experience and more timely access to data.

            What needs improvement?

            There could be better APIs around cognitive analytics, around how the messages are flowing. For example, plugins to Watson. That would be useful.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability is rock-solid.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It is highly scalable.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Technical support has been good.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved with the initial setup.

            What other advice do I have?

            You need to have the right use case to support that type of data and flight paradigm. If you do, there are third-party open-source solutions that a lot of vendors have embedded into their products that you have to integrate with. This gives you a really good platform to do that. So, if you don't want to put something in that isn't as robust or scalable, you don't have to. You can rely on this to be the conduit and the glue for your messaging fabric.

            It's also really good at asynchronous logging. A lot of times, when you buy these turnkey solutions for whatever vertical, they often don't have robust logging and security. So, we use MQ as an underpinning to get that for us and we have written services within our system that take advantage of those capabilities. So, even if the vendor doesn't provide it, we have it.

            When selecting a vendor, stability and security are the most important. Price is also important. But, in banking, because it's mission critical and highly sensitive, stability is probably way up there. If messaging fails, we don't make money.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631662 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Manager at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            Provides a lot of value in moving patient data from the entry point until the patient gets out of the building.

            What is most valuable?

            It's wonderful and is our primary backbone for moving data across different applications, within our company. Especially when we're talking about the healthcare and pharmacy industries, where we have patients' critical data, this is what we use to move data across. It's our backbone for data transmission.

            The important thing for us at this point is the amount of data that we move, the guaranteed delivery and message affinity that it offers. These are very critical features when you talk about patient data.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It has definitely brought a lot of benefit into our organization, especial when you talk about applications talking to each other. For example, when you look at a patient's experience, i.e., from the moment the patient comes in, sees the doctor, the doctor makes a lab/pharmacy order and by the time a patient goes through the lab, the data needs to be there. It provides a lot of value in moving the patient data from the entry point until the patient gets out of the building.

            What needs improvement?

            One of the features to pinpoint is migration. When we want to migrate from one version to another, it takes years. So, definitely, we want to see some solution for IBM's standpoint, in order to make it easy for the customers to migrate from one version to another.

            There are some operation challenges; however, it could be not because of the product but instead in terms of how we use it. We might be looking for improvements by adding some self-service capabilities, in order to go through the hoops of different teams to get the objects created. Thus, this will make it easy for the developers to access some of those things.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            There were no issues in regards to the stability or scalability so far. Like I mentioned elsewhere, I've been using it for years now and it has really matured, at this point. We are really happy.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Lately, quality of the technical support is not that good, as it used to be in the past. IBM supports us from the infrastructure's standpoint to the part where they provide us product support as well. So, one of the things that we did notice recently was that the qualified people who were supporting all this stuff are not there anymore.

            What other advice do I have?

            It is important to understand how to implement it and for what exactly you want to implement it. Sometimes, we get into a situation where you may not be choosing the right solution and may not really need MQ to support your product. You may be expecting something that MQ doesn't offer, so it is important to understand your business requirements and the features that MQ offers, in order to see if it is effective in implementing the solution.

            The important thing while selecting a vendor is to help the customer go through the implementation phase. One of the typical situations that we run into are the people who you're interacting with, i.e., from a customer's standpoint, the vendor may or may not have the comparable knowledge that is required to make them move to where they want to go. That's the challenge we face across all our vendors. It doesn't have to be an escalation all the time so as to get what you want. The person you're working with should be knowledgeable enough to take the customer from the start to the end.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632802 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Systems Manager at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            Provides reliable, guaranteed message delivery.

            What is most valuable?

            The most valuable feature of this product is that it provides guaranteed message delivery. This is important for us because we want to have guaranteed message delivery and integrity; we cannot lose that message.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The reliability that it provides is the most beneficial aspect of this product for our organization.

            What needs improvement?

            One thing that I'd like to see is that queue-sharing should not depend on DB2. It should have this feature by itself, instead of depending on DB2.

            In order to set up IBM MQ queue-sharing, DB2 data sharing is required in multiple LPARs. Thus, to make the implementation easy and straightforward, it will be nice if DB2 is not required for queue-sharing.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            In regards to the stability of the product itself, it's pretty good. However, it depends on the configuration as well. Overall, the stability is good.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is pretty good as well and on the mainframe, we can expand it. That way, we're looking to carry out queue sharing, on the mainframe as well.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            The technical support is fine. MQ is very predictable product and it's good.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was involved in the initial setup, but not in this company; at a different company. I found that it was easy to install.

            What other advice do I have?

            This product is from IBM which is a very well-known company.

            MQ is a reliable, easy to understand and install solution.

            The most important criteria while selecting a vendor are that they should be well-known and the product's reliability. These are the main reasons as to why we chose IBM MQ.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632733 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Enterprise Architect at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
            Consultant
            It allows data transmission from multiple platforms in a fault-tolerant manner.

            What is most valuable?

            It allows data transmission from multiple platforms in a fault-tolerant manner, that's the biggest feature. It is important for us because we do a lot of data transformation and data transmission between different systems; that's one of the biggest things that we do.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It's the backbone of all our data transformation and integration. Thus, this solution is our main integration platform.

            What needs improvement?

            Maybe, there should be a containerized version of the application, that can be deployed on the enterprises. So, there is need for a Docker container version of this product.

            They need to do a better job of getting it into the open-source world, so that other people, who are more dependent on open-source technologies, start using it as well.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We've been using it for ten plus years now, so it's been good.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It has scaled to all our needs.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We have used technical support. I can't think of any issues with technical support. We've received the support that we needed, on time.

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

            We've been using it for a long time. We were not using any other solution before.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We probably looked at IBM and Red Hat solutions. The reason as to why we chose IBM is because they are more mature in that area.

            Longevity, deep support and technical depth are my most important criteria in selecting a vendor.

            What other advice do I have?

            You should take a look into this solution.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            Sudipta Datta - PeerSpot reviewer
            Sudipta DattaMarketing Manager at a tech company with 5,001-10,000 employees
            MSP

            IBM MQ can be shipped in Docker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoomAVqk0cI

            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
            it_user632736 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Enterprise Application Integration Specialist at a transportation company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Real User
            With the pub/sub model, when data changes, we publish the changes to all the subscribers.

            What is most valuable?

            The pub/sub model is the one that we use heavily on IBM MQ. That's the most valuable for us. We are an enterprise team and we provide a lot of integration to the enterprise systems, so when the data changes on the enterprise systems, we publish a lot of these changes to all the subscribers, whether it's a customer change or the account changes.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It provides seamless integration with the enterprise and any enterprise data changes. Also, the reliability is important for us.

            What needs improvement?

            Using it as a service, as a platform on cloud, would be an improvement. I think it's always had room for improvement, so I would definitely put more on the cloud-based services than on what we currently use.

            Also, ease of use isn't that great, as it's still considered enterprise class, whereas the more modern applications or platforms do offer modern interfaces and a way to integrate with those systems. Still, I feel its very legacy-natured.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            I think the stability is great. That's one of the assets IBM MQ is known for.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            So far, I think we haven't faced any scalability issues, but it is well architected in terms of its high availability and DR purposes.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I don't have any complaints about the technical support.

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

            I think it was always an IBM MQ base which we used.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            I don't have information regarding which vendors were considered before we chose IBM MQ.

            The features and the reliability of the product are important considerations when selecting a vendor.

            What other advice do I have?

            Definitely it's a great product. But, I think we need better interfaces.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632694 - PeerSpot reviewer
            System Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            We like the queue depths and creations for the installations.

            What is most valuable?

            Most valuable for us are the queue depths and creations for the installations. Being a business in financial solutions, we depend on it more for those things, so it's very valuable for us. For most of the applications like JBoss and others we use IBM MQ.

            What needs improvement?

            It just needs a better installation. An easier user-friendly installation.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            The stability is good. I mean we do have some issues but we always contact IBM whenever we have performance-based issues and we get solutions quick and fast.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is great.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            The technical support is great. Normally, whenever we have an issue, within 24 hours we will get a resolution, so we can close it and leave it to the IBM technical support guys. We get a solution mostly within 24 hours, so that's great.

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

            We didn't have another solution previously, we have always been with MQ.

            How was the initial setup?

            I would say it was both straightforward and complex, but not that complex. I mean the installation normally would take some time and with all of them open, it's just a button click and you're done.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            I wasn't involved in the selection of the vendors.

            What other advice do I have?

            Go for it. You should always check out the performance and trust for a good solution.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632691 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Systems Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            We use it for authentication and authorization of incoming requests.

            What is most valuable?

            We can do the authentication and authorization of incoming requests using IBM WebSphere and DataPower. That's important to us because we can confidentially send the data with restrictions to other platforms.

            How has it helped my organization?

            In terms of benefits, our customers are happier since we are doing a good job.

            What needs improvement?

            In the next release, we would like to see more authentication capabilities embedded and included in the existing product.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            I don't know about the stability.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We are good with the scalable data in the product.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            I haven't used the technical support.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            I'm not sure about alternative solutions considered.

            What other advice do I have?

            I definitely recommend them.

            When selecting a vendor, we are looking for timely interaction. In case there any issues, we need to get support immediately.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632685 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Systems Administrator at a healthcare company
            Vendor
            The most valuable feature is the interconnection of data between different systems.

            What is most valuable?

            For the IBM MQ solution, the most valuable feature is the interconnection of data between the different systems. In our company, we use mainframe, Windows, and Unix and it provides communication with different plans like associations and the federal employee plan. That's what we're looking for.

            The main feature right now that we're looking for is open source and that is where we see more challenges coming up with the product. This is because a lot of the applications are going with open source such as cloud and providing connection with the cloud. We have Amazon AWS cloud services or Microsoft Azure services and the applications are deployed there, so connectivity with those type of applications is necessary.

            How has it helped my organization?

            IBM MQ has broadened a lot of communication between interconnecting the applications. It's more fault tolerant, since we have the message delivery guaranteed. We have high availability for the application and it's not stateful. It has provided the features such as the application to process messages from the mainframe as well as from the web, so we can increase the throughput of the system.

            What needs improvement?

            The response time could be improved because that's our main concern. Once our system is down, then it impacts our business since we have another partner who is dependent on us.

            There is need for more integration with cloud. That's what we're looking for, because that's what the company is moving towards.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            The stability is very good, actually. In our organization, we saw almost 99.9% uptime for the product.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            The scalability is really good, because only your system limits the functionality. We can add more storage / more memory and we can always scale up.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We have used the technical support, but we are more concerned about the response time. For example, we have severity 1 issues and the system is down, but we still see time gaps and they don't respond.

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

            Previous, we were using the Oracle Tuxedo solution and it had a lot of limitations. It was not able to interface with a lot of the other systems, i.e., the interface was only with C-based operating systems/programs that use only Windows. That's why we switched to IBM MQ, since it brought a lot of benefits.

            How was the initial setup?

            The setup was complicated because when I started and there were around 400 queue managers. We have four companies that we communicate with, so we changed a lot of the architecture, i.e., we went from the local queue managers to centralize and to reduce issues, in order to have a more manageable system.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            Actually, we looked at IBM and Microsoft. However, IBM had a wider scope of the product, and compared to it, Microsoft provided limited platform support. That's why we chose IBM.

            The factors that we look at before selecting a vendor, are how the product supports integration with other companies and the overall support they provide to us.

            What other advice do I have?

            Definitely, you should use IBM MQ because it is a stable product and provides a wide interface with different systems. You can talk to mainframes on other systems as well, so I would highly recommend this product.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            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_user632739 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Engineer at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            Its versatility and portability are valuable features.

            What is most valuable?

            MQ is a very affordable and easy to use messaging product. I like how fast you can write an API and send a message. Thus, its versatility, portability and easy to use functionality are valuable features of this product.

            How has it helped my organization?

            We use MQ for our insurance claims and use it heavily for CICS in the IBM Mainframe and use the IBM IMS for our applications.

            What needs improvement?

            Right now, with the new functions such as z/OS & distributed, I don't see any need for additional features as such. This is because everything that MQ provides, we do it. It's okay right now. Things are working fine.

            The migration aspect is different and it depends on who is doing it, i.e., whether a person is doing it for the first time or a person who has done it for 18 times. I have done a lot of migrations in MQ, starting from this product version 2 and now it is on version 9. I have done a lot of migrations, so it all depends on how much experience you have, how you set up your migration task and so on. Migration is fine. I don't see any problem there.

            If IBM develops a tool inside the MQ product for monitoring, then that will be better for the other IBM products available.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            We have been using this solution for 17-18 years.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It's a very stable product. Being one of IBM's high-end messaging solution, it's a very robust product.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We have not had any issues. It is scalable.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            I use the technical support from time to time in Hursley because MQ is developed in Hursley. I keep in contact with Hursley developers because in my organization, we use MQ a whole lot for our messaging. I am very happy with the support.

            What other advice do I have?

            It is a good messaging product from IBM and is easy to use. It is very affordable and flexible, so I will advise other customers/companies to look into this product and use it.

            The most important criteria while selecting a vendor are the customer support and easy to use the product. It is also important if the vendors can provide training to the staff and always be behind the customers to help them.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632688 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Middleware Engineer at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
            Consultant
            Integrates one system to another system, and to .NET and Java applications.

            What is most valuable?

            Basically 100% message delivery and how easy it is to integrate the system to another system / .NET / Java applications are the most valuable features. It provides 100% guaranteed message delivery, so you won't lose any messages, even in the event of a MQ failure.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The benefit is that we are in an industry where we cannot lose any piece of data, so MQ gives that reliability. In terms of security, like I mentioned preciously, you won't loose any of the transactions at all, even if you have a failure. It's very important to us, especially the FIFO feature (first-in, first-out) and that kind of persistent messaging. We have a billing system where whatever messages drop first need to be consumed first. Thus, these features are really good. It helps us flowing all the MQ messages.

            What needs improvement?

            One of the bottlenecks for us is owing to the industry that we're in, we sometimes get the large payloads and the MQ queues that we can increase. But, the maximum payload size allowed is only 100 Mbps. So, I wish to see if it bumps up because sometimes we hit that ceiling and the message won't process. We have to find another way to mitigate one or two instances like that. It's critical, so I don't know if there are any future plans to increase that size to unlimited or at least where you can set it based on your business model, i.e., if your payload is higher, then you can set it higher.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It's pretty stable. We did not experience any downtime. Probably, there's no other product out there like MQ for messaging. It's the most reliable solution. We had our MQ running in production for almost 800-900 days without any issues, i.e., for more than three years, we didn't even have to restart, and still everything runs so smoothly.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It's fully scalable. You can add as many queue managers or queues in there, so it's pretty flexible in terms of scalability.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I have used the technical support around one or two times, but not that much. I did have some meetings scheduled with the architecture guys at a recent IBM conference. I am quite happy with the support that I have received.

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

            We were not using any other solution previously. From the beginning, we implemented it. We always look up to IBM software. We have so many IBM shops with products such as the IBM AIX Servers, WebSphere Servers, WebSphere Liberty, IBM Integration Bus, IBM InfoSphere MDM Reference Data Management, IBM PA and IDMP. We have lots and lots of IBM products, including the WebSphere Portal and WebSphere Commerce, so we got a lot of things from IBM.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's a good solution and you should go for it!

            When selecting a vendor, mainly the support part is very important, especially when something goes wrong in production; you don't want to leave the system down. This could cost the customer a lot of money, so having that level of support is important. Sometimes, we run into an issue where the support is not able to help, then we always reach out to our self-service representatives. After which, the ticket gets escalated and addressed pretty quickly, so that's the kind of attention required.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631719 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Enterprise Architect at a transportation company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It scales and does guaranteed delivery. It can handle messages in various formats and structures.
            Pros and Cons
            • "It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features."
            • "I would like the ability to connect with some of the more recent offerings, such as API Connect; being able to publish our MQ endpoints, the queues, the messaging infrastructure as IT assets."

            How has it helped my organization?

            The benefit would be scale. Because of the way it works, you can really have many, many users who use the solution at the same time. Other benefits would be the ability to send messages between systems and do systems integration, without interrupting their run-time behavior.

            What is most valuable?

            It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features. And finally, it's ability to handle messages in various formats and structures.

            What needs improvement?

            I would like the ability to connect with some of the more recent offerings, such as API Connect; being able to publish our MQ endpoints, the queues, the messaging infrastructure as IT assets. To control them, govern them and manage them and being able to publish non-functional requirements around it. For example, we support this size of the payload, we support this much throughput. Making it known and available to the rest of the organization, because this technology is so technical in nature, business management doesn't understand it. I would really like a business-friendlier or end-user friendly information layer, and some kind of simple ability to communicate what we have with the users.
            I want an information layer that I can publish and tell the whole rest of the organization this is what you get.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability-wise, it has worked for us. It is an old technology and it has always worked well for us.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            You can really have many, many users who use the solution at the same time.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We haven't had to use support much, because we have really good people. So, it has worked for us the way we wanted.

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

            We did not have a previous solution. We always knew we needed something that worked asynchronously, something that did the messaging in the background. The reason we knew we needed MQ is, it's one of the integration backgrounds we supported and this was an obvious choice.

            When selecting a vendor, the knowledge and the experience that the vendor has is most important. For example, IBM has had MQ for forever. So, that's definitely helpful. It's finding resources that know the product and technology and obviously the ability to support the platform. And, when necessary, be able to guide the customer through various usages and integrations with the rest of the IT infrastructure.

            How was the initial setup?

            In the latest installation that we are talking about right now, I was not involved. But, for other installations in the past, I was involved in the set up and it was pretty straightforward. I'd consider MQ one of the simplest products to use.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We didn't look at many alternatives. We considered the Microsoft platform for a little bit, but we almost always knew we wanted to do this with MQ.

            What other advice do I have?

            If they're thinking about a solution similar to this, I would say, look at your requirements and not just the business requirements. People often stop at that point. Look at your ability to support and run the platform, and the cost of running the platform, because, depending on your need, it could be very expensive to run a large messaging infrastructure. Also, think about what non-functional requirements you want to support now, but what you might have to support three, five, or ten years down the road. Think about it from the bigger picture perspective. And don't implement the solution for one small single requirement. People often make that mistake. They commit to a big licensing and support cost but what they're running is very small and there is not very much value added. That’s a problem there. So look at whether can you put a lot of solutions on it. Can you use it as a platform rather than a points solution is what I would look for.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631791 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Assistant analyst at Office of Attorney general of Texas
            Real User
            The integration between applications is the most valuable feature. It is lightweight, so you only need to scale the hardware.

            What is most valuable?

            The integration between applications is the most valuable feature. We can use it with multiple applications.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It provides faster interaction between the applications. It makes it easier to integrate the applications.

            What needs improvement?

            So we're on MQ version 8, and I was at a recent event for MQ 9 and it looks like they've already added some of the features I was looking. For example, a better monitoring system, and a GUI to display messages, which I think they've already done.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            MQ is very stable. It's a very simple application to set up, and once it is set you don't have to really configure or monitor it so much.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Since it is very lightweight, the only thing you have to really scale is hardware. So, migrating is very simple as well. It supports HA, so we have it set up with just an active/passive type set up. And we don't have to scale it as much. So far, its been working out great.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We haven't had to use support yet.

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

            Our first time using a message queue system was MQ, so we went with the IBM MQ product.

            Being with a state agency, we actually go through what's called a hub that has a relationship with IBM. We can't directly purchase from IBM, so we have to go send bids. But, since we have quite a few IBM applications, we always you know target IBM since we already have the support that we need and our relationship with our sales person is really great. So, we always choose IBM.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was involved in the initial setup. It was fairly straightforward. Once you start creating the queue managers, there's some configuration involved, which our developers take care of. I just take care of the basic installation of the product, which is very simple.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            I don't know the names of any alternative vendors.

            What other advice do I have?

            MQ is awesome.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632658 - PeerSpot reviewer
            RCM Engineer at a aerospace/defense firm
            Vendor
            It helped us with our Maximo integration between the users and the database administrators.

            What is most valuable?

            So far, it's helped us with our Maximo integration between the users and the database administrators. I know we kind of lagged behind on some updates, which caused us problems. We recently upgraded, which had made things a lot easier, got rid of some of the issues we had with the older versions.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It helped us with some of our security, on some of our roles, if I remember correctly. It helped us integrating; we’re trying to move a bunch of different things, like trying to move EZMaxMobile into our Maximo and a few other things. Part of that was bringing up WebSphere to the newest version for all the integration.

            What needs improvement?

            Off the top of my head, I can't really think of any features I’d like to see in future versions. Right now, I don’t have any improvements to the version we’re using. We just upgraded two or three months ago, and we're still getting it all set up.

            The configurations were not difficult, but like I’ve mentioned, again, I believe when they went through the integration, they talked to IBM to make sure that we're going to go through OK. So, there was some interface back and forth during the upgrade.
            We’re happy with the user interface, so far.

            Getting more analytics coming out of MQ is something we're working with across the board with everything, with our Maximo data, with all the applications we have. We get tired of having to pull reports and somebody has to manually crunch the numbers. We need something behind the scenes tabulating everything and coming up with answers, so we don't spend all our time just collecting everything. If there would be an integrated tool that would give us reports, that would be amazing.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            With the newest version, we haven't really had any stability or scalability issues. I guess that's a good thing.

            With the previous versions, it was just that we were a version behind on what the version of Maximo and everything we were using, so it was causing a few little glitches and buggy issues.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We frequently use technical support. They have been pretty good, so far.

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

            We knew we needed to invest in a new solution mainly because of the issues we were having with the old version; it was pointed out that they were going to be fixed by the new version, so that was kind of a simple thing.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup with this current version.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We were already using WebSphere MQ, so we didn’t look any other solutions.

            What other advice do I have?

            Don't be afraid to call. If you're worried about tackling it all on your own, don't be afraid to call IBM or call somebody that's already gone through the process and get some help, because we're all willing to help; you just have to ask.

            I have not given it a perfect rating because there's always room for improvement. I can't give them the improvements; they have to figure that out. It works really well but like I’ve mentioned, with the way everything's changing and developing every day, you always have to be on the lookout for what's coming up next.

            In general, when I am looking at vendors, the number one criteria is responsiveness. Number two is time frames and that they meet the schedules. Those are our two biggest things. We've had issues with other vendors in the past with those same things.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632670 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Manager Enterprise Systems Administration at a insurance company with 501-1,000 employees
            Vendor
            It delivers the stability and security within our applications that we desire as an organization.

            What is most valuable?

            It's certainly a product that you can rely on. It delivers the stability and security within our applications that we desire as an organization.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The time to deployment is quick and easy. Again, it is stable, auditable, and uses automation to deploy products and keep the systems up and running while the business is still functioning.

            What needs improvement?

            I think the cloud is our next solution. Because we’re in the healthcare industry, I want to make sure the security is really strong and capable of keeping our members' data secure.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It's very scalable. It's very easy to build out with high availability, and you're also able to scale both vertically and horizontally very easily.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We used all the big players and we chose IBM just because of the fact that we've used them before with other solutions. We know their capabilities. Their delivery solution team has helped guide our solutions across the board and has delivered high availability, high quality to our members.

            We also used Oracle, and we also used the Tomcats and JBoss product lines.
            The most important criteria when selecting a vendor is reliability; knowing that they're going to be there to support you when you need them; the ability to bring solutions to an issue in a quick manner that allows you to keep your business going.

            What other advice do I have?

            Every application could always use improvements, but it's a very stable application and delivery solution tool that we are able to implement quickly and add applications to it quickly; keep us going in an ever-changing environment.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632748 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Business Leader at Visa
            Real User
            ​Partnership with the vendor and stability of the product are most important when selecting a vendor.

            What is most valuable?

            Guaranteed delivery of the messages and then the ability to scale the messages the way we need it according to our application, performance, and scalability.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It helps us to make sure that every time you do a swipe on your credit card, the credit card transaction is guaranteed to transact.

            What needs improvement?

            Some of the new features that their competitors are coming out with. Things like AMQ are coming out with - transformation of messages with the security aspect of it and even scalability with AMQ, it's scaled at the microservices level and MQ is not quite there yet.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            We're currently evaluating AMQ to see if from a cost perspective it makes sense or not to switch from IBM MQ. We still have IBM MQ.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Very stable. Within the last year or so we hardly had any issues with the MQ or the queue itself going down.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability good, we can scale by the application needs and also scale by the need of the application but also the need of the infrastructure. At our peak, we're able to scale and make sure the transaction goes through.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Customer Service:

            Service is good. We've been able to meet all our SLAs in the agreement that we signed with them.

            Technical Support:

            We have an enterprise level agreement with IBM. If there's any issue with MQ, we have a direct line to them.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            AMQ is one of them, Kafka is the other, and of course IBM MQ has always been on the list.

            We chose IBM a long time ago from all the criteria I mentioned and then at the time other players were not evolving yet. IBM MQ has been an enterprise solution for many companies and the stability's there. It made a lot of sense for us to use IBM MQ back then.

            What other advice do I have?

            Partnership with the vendor and stability of the product are most important when selecting a vendor. I mentioned AMQ earlier, and there's no guarantee that AMQ will be around next year.

            Stability is key to the product and the performance of it, you can get high availability, high performance too, but we talk about tens of thousands TPS through the product so, from that perspective there's no other competitor on it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632706 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Specialist at a wholesaler/distributor with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It's easy to work with and has been stable.

            What is most valuable?

            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.

            How has it helped my organization?

            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.

            What needs improvement?

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

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Good stability.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Good scalability.

            How is customer service and technical support?

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

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            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.

            What other advice do I have?

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

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632673 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Technical Manager at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
            Real User
            It is robust. Its dependability and reliability are its most valuable features.

            What is most valuable?

            The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is that it is robust. Its dependability and reliability are its most valuable features.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It has allowed us to take applications that would not normally be able to communicate, to be able to talk to each other.

            What needs improvement?

            I would like to see more integration into the security back end.

            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 very scalable.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            Technical support is OK. Quicker escalation would make it better.

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

            This was the first solution of this type and it was the one that was the best fit.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's very stable and it's pretty straightforward. It just needs some more integration features to make better.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a solution is that it meets the needs.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632682 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Manager Middleware and Database Systems at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
            Consultant
            We can pull our legacy data from the mainframe and bring it down into a modern Java front end.

            What is most valuable?

            For MQ, the most valuable feature is our ability to connect our distributed systems back to the mainframe, and pull our legacy data out of the mainframe and bring it down into a modern Java front end.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It's easy to install and it's bulletproof. We never have an issue with it. The upgrades are easy and IBM support is fantastic.

            What needs improvement?

            Honestly, the features they just recently released are what I wanted to see. Like I mentioned elsewhere, the appliance device was fantastic. It's MQ in a box, and you just plug it right into the network. I'd like to see improvements around that area, so we can take our z/OS systems into our distributed environments even easier.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We are very happy with the stability.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We are very happy with the scalability. It's easy to scale, easy to cluster, it's highly available, and we love the fact that IBM is now making appliance devices out of MQ, so you can buy them and just rack them right into your data center.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We are very happy with IBM support. Also, their professional services; if you need consulting, they're fantastic.

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

            We used this product to solve our initial development solution about 15 years ago. We were coming on with Java, and we needed to connect our distributed front-end Java to our back-end legacy business intelligence code that's all written in COBOL on the mainframe. MQ was just the perfect way to connect.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was involved in the setup. It's straightforward, but I had done this before.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We looked at a couple others, such as RabbitMQ and Sonic. They just didn't have IBM’s weight behind them. I love it.

            When looking for a vendor, I look at their reputation, reliability, and a recommendation from the industry like a Gartner report. The Magic Quadrant is huge for us. We look at quadrant leaders all the time when we're taking solutions.

            What other advice do I have?

            Don't hesitate. Call IBM and get them in there tomorrow.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631797 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Technology Solutions at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            The major thing we like about it is zero transaction loss.

            What is most valuable?

            The major thing we like about it is zero transaction loss. The other thing, which is a plus point, is first in, first out (FIFO). You can be pretty sure that if MQ goes down for whatever reason, the transactions will still sustain; they won't be lost. There is a drawback when, once a transaction touches the other point, it is lost, in the sense that if you don't process it, but that is fair enough.

            How has it helped my organization?

            There is a good user interface. It is a very good way of interfacing two systems. For example, in our case, the central bank clearing systems interface our systems using MQ. It is seamless. I did not face any problems. Initially, when you do the setup, you have to be careful and configure it properly. Once you do that, it is OK.

            What needs improvement?

            It should be able to keep a copy, so that if there is an accident, we would still be able to record the transactions. Maybe processing could be faster, in terms of EPS.
            If you consider migration from one version to another, that is an issue and then initial configuration is challenging; when we change the version or change the server.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We never had stability issues. The issues are there only when you are configuring for the first time. Once you get the right configuration, then you can actually forget about the fact that there is MQ.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We have not had any scalability issues.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I have used technical support once in a while, such as when we are upgrading or when we are going to change the server or something like that. They are pretty good. In our part of the world, it's pretty good support.

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

            Interfacing is required in any situation when you have two systems talking to each other. So, there are not too many options. One, is that you can have a file handoff. You can have MQ messaging. Or, you can have an API. So, we currently prefer API, so MQ is slowly losing its position.

            How was the initial setup?

            Sometimes I am involved in the setup. But, now my people have become experts setting it up. There are issues that happen once in a while. For example, last year it happened when we changed the server. For whatever reasons, the configurations were in fact reset. So we brought IBM in. Those were complex configurations. For whatever reason, a couple of parameters could not be reset. Or, they didn't remember which parameters to reset.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            As far as MQ, we only looked at IBM. There are many open-source products available now, like IBM MQ Plus. IBM is coming out with something called IBM MQ Plus Plus. Obviously we have not gone for it, but those are the competition.

            MQ is also closely integrated with the broker; internally, it is now an API. There is a close connection.

            When selecting a vendor, full scale support is important and technical acumen. If I'm asking a new question, he should be able to resolve it or at least give me direction. I also want timely support. If my production goes down at 12 o'clock in the night, there should be someone to talk to me. I think IBM has very reasonable support, so it helps. Worse-case scenario, you could call and expect an answer within the next one or two hours.

            What other advice do I have?

            Do the first configuration really well. Maybe involve IBM right from the beginning.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631761 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Engineer at WinWholesale
            Vendor
            The scalability and high uptime are valuable.

            What is most valuable?

            Its scalability and uptime is very high. So, these are the two main valuable features of this product. We rarely see any downtime on MQ's side of the product.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It helps us, i.e., even if some of the other apps are down, we don't lose any of the customer data, so it's very beneficial from that perspective.

            What needs improvement?

            We would like to see more clustering, high availability, and also monitoring features. Monitoring is a big part. We would like to see if we get back out queues or the queue depth goes high, so that we can be alerted on that.

            It still needs some improvement, in terms of high availability and the clustering needs to be improved. Monitoring is a big piece which is missing.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            We have been using this solution for the past ten years.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            For the stability of this product, I would give it a 9/10 rating. Only sometimes when some queue manager dies, then at that point, we lose a couple of messages but not a whole lot.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            I would give the technical support a 7/10 rating because we do get the response back, but a lot of time gets wasted in carrying out processes such as getting and sending logs, instead of coming online and sharing the screen and troubleshooting the issue.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We work with Proficient Solutions, Inc. and Prolifics. There are others as well, but these are the two major ones.

            The number one criteria while selecting a vendor is availability. The other factors that we look for are proximity, their technical knowledge, market reputation and of course the pricing policy.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's a good product. Compared to the other products on the market, it's a very good product. Based on your company needs, you should give it a try and it should work.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631773 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Project Leader at EDF
            Vendor
            Its reliability and efficiency are valuable. It would be nice to have better reporting, such as elasticsearch

            What is most valuable?

            The most valuable features of this solution are its reliability, efficiency, and the capacity to bring value.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The benefits are the satisfaction of my users (my clients), the stability of the solution, and the availability it provides.

            What needs improvement?

            It would be nice for the next release to have better reporting. For example, elasticsearch or ELK. We don't have that with IBM. So we have implemented our own solution.

            We have a major application based on DataPowers and WebSphere servers.

            We had an main issue to visualize efficiently the utilization of our WebSphere applications (load, who is using, when, how). It’s critical in defining our “capacity planning”.

            Actually, we’ve developed our own reporting solution based on Kibana/Elasticsearch. Kibana analyses ours logs in real time. We have done a portal with several graphs. It is really impressive. We are very happy with our solution.

            IBM doesn’t provide, by default, a reporting item as efficient as Kibana. DMGR is not as powerful and flexible.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            The stability is quite good. It's strong and the performance is important.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is a bit difficult for us. Since this product is an IBM product, we have to work together with IBM to be more efficient at this point.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            We are not really happy with their support. They don't have the skills to very efficiently answer our questions, so our relationship with them is difficult.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            What other advice do I have?

            When it's too difficult to have what we want with IBM, we develop our own, better solution and we try to integrate our own solution with IBM.

            When selecting a vendor, we look for the confidence, the relationship. We have to share the same objectives and to agree in order to deliver the same value to the client.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631665 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Director at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It's reliable, forward compatible, and scalable.

            What is most valuable?

            It's good for messaging, very reliable, and forward compatible, so it makes our life easy when it comes to upgrades.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It's reliability really enables us to do our interfaces. Additionally, it scales really well, so when our needs grow, it grows with us.

            What needs improvement?

            We would like to see more capabilities with MQ over the internet. It would be very helpful to us to expose our API and web services. We want to see that a little bit more and we want to continue to see that it's a secure means for us to protect our data.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We are absolutely happy with the stability.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We are absolutely happy with the scalability.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We did use technical support mostly when doing upgrades. I would say that we have used this solution for about 15 years already. We only encountered production problems two or three times. It is a very reliable, very solid solution.

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

            I've been involved with integration for a long time. When we first talked about our need to do queue messaging, MQ was the first one that came up. It proves itself.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was involved in the initial setup. It was straightforward.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            I don't recall whether we evaluated alternatives. I think IBM was the first and the last one we reviewed a solution with.

            What other advice do I have?

            Do the same thing we did. Make sure that you give it a small test first to make sure the solution really works well. Then, make sure it scales.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631707 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Sr. Middleware Architect at a media company with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            Data is sent only once, asynchronously as well as synchronously.

            What is most valuable?

            WebSphere messaging, clustering and security are the most important and most valuable features.

            Security is the most important thing right now. Nowadays, you can see people are hacking into systems to steal customer data. MQ has very good security features and it supports very good protocols.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The biggest advantage about us using messaging is that we can connect to most of the financial customers across the globe securely and data is always sent only once, asynchronously as well as synchronously.

            What needs improvement?

            We are moving toward the cloud. How can we migrate the existing customers to a private cloud? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Maybe it's already there. I need to know.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It is a very stable product. We have been using it for more than ten years. It is very stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It's pretty much scalable, but I'm looking to see if we can scale to cloud using the existing infrastructure. It’s like picking up buckets. It’s very lax.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We have used technical support. Not for the solution, but for problems or issues. I would say that they are okay. If you want me to rate between one to ten, I would rate them four.

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

            We did not previously use a different solution. This is something that we started using and it has grown tremendously in eight or ten years. It is one of the most widely used messaging solutions, internally and for external customers.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was involved in the initial setup. It is straightforward. Since I'm familiar with this tool and been working with it for 12 years, it was straightforward.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We did not evaluate any alternatives.

            What other advice do I have?

            I think it all depends on the business need or the price. If the budget is strict, then they go with other solutions. They compromise on the business need. If they are OK with the budget, then they just go with it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632700 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Infrastructure Manager at Colruyt Group
            Vendor
            Allows close coupling between different domains.

            What is most valuable?

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

            How has it helped my organization?

            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.

            What needs improvement?

            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.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            There is no downtime. It is very stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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

            How are customer service and technical support?

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

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

            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.

            How was the initial setup?

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

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            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.

            What other advice do I have?

            Just do it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632712 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Manager
            Vendor
            The scalability of the environment is the most valuable feature. We also like the speed and the manageability.

            What is most valuable?

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

            How has it helped my organization?

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

            What needs improvement?

            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.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            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.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            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.

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

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

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            What other advice do I have?

            Study hard, and implement small, and then scale.

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

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632715 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Specialist at a wellness & fitness company
            Vendor
            We are using it for the APIs in order to integrate data into the source systems.

            What is most valuable?

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

            How has it helped my organization?

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

            What needs improvement?

            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.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

            How is customer service and technical support?

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

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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

            What other advice do I have?

            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
            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632742 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Data Flow Manager at a consumer goods company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It can be managed from a web page and it is stable.

            What is most valuable?

            It can be managed from a web page.

            How has it helped my organization?

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

            What needs improvement?

            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.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            I can say that it's stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It is scalable, but not easily.

            How are customer service and technical support?

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

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

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

            How was the initial setup?

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

            What other advice do I have?

            Just go ahead and do it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632757 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Analyst at a wholesaler/distributor with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            We use it in conjunction with the integration bus for testing and development. The initial launch of the application seems slow.

            What is most valuable?

            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.

            How has it helped my organization?

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

            What needs improvement?

            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.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            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.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            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.

            How is customer service and technical support?

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

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            What other advice do I have?

            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.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631695 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Systems Programmer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Real User
            The messaging and the security are the most valuable features.

            What is most valuable?

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

            How has it helped my organization?

            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.

            What needs improvement?

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

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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

            How are customer service and technical support?

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

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

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

            How was the initial setup?

            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.

            What other advice do I have?

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

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631746 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Software Developer at a transportation company with 10,001+ employees
            Real User
            It's reliable, stable, and scalable.

            What is most valuable?

            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.

            How has it helped my organization?

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

            What needs improvement?

            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.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

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

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is good.

            How are customer service and technical support?

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

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

            I wasn't part of the decision to switch.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            What other advice do I have?

            Use it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user487374 - PeerSpot reviewer
            it_user487374VP Product Management at PeerSpot
            Consultant

            What helped you decide to move to the next version?

            it_user631755 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Systems Engineer at a wholesaler/distributor with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It gave us the ability to search through the data based on the identity of the person, the machine, or the IP address.

            What is most valuable?

            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.

            How has it helped my organization?

            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.

            What needs improvement?

            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.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            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.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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

            How are customer service and technical support?

            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.

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

            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.

            How was the initial setup?

            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.

            What other advice do I have?

            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.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631779 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Assistance Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
            Real User
            The message synchronization and high availability is valuable. I'm looking for improved collaboration with Message Broker and DataPower.

            What is most valuable?

            They keep on increasing the solutions such as for message synchronization. They have really improved it a lot, with major clustering and the high availability that it can do now. I'm still deep diving into the latest version right now. We have been using this solution for a really long time.

            How has it helped my organization?

            Basically, we are using the messaging part of the solution, collaborating with other technologies on the WebSphere platform. Once you do everything, then you don't really need to worry if the network is available or not. Once you are delivering the message, it's going to be sure delivery for you.

            What needs improvement?

            I must check this in depth. I can't really comment on areas with room for improvement, because they already introduced a lot already. I'm still new and need to explore what exactly the latest version has in it. So, only after that I can say what more we need exactly.

            I have not had any issues but I'm looking for more collaboration with the Message Broker and DataPower. I feel that the MQ takes a longer time when DataPower is trying to connect to the MQ part, so I'm looking for that. But, I don't have a really good point to bring out right now.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            The reason we have been using the solution is because we have it for a really long time, i.e., for more than a decade.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            The product's stability is really good. I have recently heard that they're introducing a separate appliance for this. That's going to be a very good step for everyone.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            I'm so positive about it's scalability. Other than Walmart, I am working with other companies and I work with the same solution. The scalability is going to be really good and I support it to it's extreme.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            IBM technical support is always very great and we have a really good opportunity to talk with them, each and every time that we need support. They give us special attention. So, we're happy with the support provided.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was involved in all the possibilities. In the past, I have carried out the implementation process from scratch. With my current employer, I have started supporting and building more for the already existing environment.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's stable and they keep on just increasing the facilities they are providing in regards to clustering and the public supplied options. They're really doing good there.

            IBM is doing really good and they're still growing. IBM should keep the work up in the same way and eventually they'll get there.

            We have multiple offers out there from competitors, to beat out the open-sources and the competitors comparing with the license cause and the product-support cause. However, they aren't competitive enough and IBM is way above. In the end, you will get what you pay for.

            It all depends on the budget. If you have the budget, then I always prefer IBM.
            IBM is the more expensive solution out there, but it's worth it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632697 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Middleware Engineer at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
            Consultant
            You subscribe to your queue, they get the message and then they do what they need to with it.

            What is most valuable?

            We use MQ just for transferring messages to and from applications. We get subscriptions, queues, topics and all the app teams love it. It is an easy way to transfer messages, so that's commonly used as a solution for us.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The benefit is, it is easy to use. You subscribe to your queue, they get the message and then they do what they need to with it. It goes on or it ends, either way; it is very easy to use.

            What needs improvement?

            From what I understand from the team, mainly just the security piece needs to be improved, but it sounds like they already have that resolved.

            Obviously, there's always a bug or two here and there that could be fixed, but they're constantly evolving and improving it.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            I know that they're coming out next with IBM MQ Version 9 or 10, so they are always updating the versions. It is a very stable product.

            We did experience some security issues with the older versions. As of now, people can log in as root, i.e., whoever wants to log in as root, they can. However, with the new version, they're taking that away.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            I have not used any technical support for this solution.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            Usually we just go with the IBM products, so I don't think we've looked outside that much for another messaging solution.

            What other advice do I have?

            From our perspective, we use the IBM suite. They provide great support when we need it. They're always evolving and are very stable, so all around it is a very good suite from IBM.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user632730 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Manager at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            We can track work orders and requests, so as to provide better customer service. A more graphical user interface is required.

            What is most valuable?

            We use the WebSphere and also use the IBM Maximo Enterprise Management System. The most usable functionality for us is just for tracking work orders and work requests, so that we can provide better customer service.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It has improved the way my organization functions by just being less paper, and more efficient with timing; again, going back to the customer service, with clients being able to close their work orders within a shorter time frame.

            What needs improvement?

            I'd like to see a more graphical user interface type of configuration for the application.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Normally, the system is very stable but we've actually just got a call, "Part of it's down!" So, at the moment, we have got a bit of downtime.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            The scalability is enormous, which creates issues as well as has benefits. The scalability adds complexity to it. It is scalable, but with some caveats.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            We honestly don't utilize IBM for tech support. We have an independent partner that we use for all of our IT support for this product.

            What other advice do I have?

            It works well, but I think that the overall scale of what you can do with this product adds, again, to the level of complexity, as to what you need in-house for support.

            Definitely, you should go out and really try and define your requirements before you actually go out to look at other products. You should know exactly how you're going to use it, and what you hope to get out of this product. Thus, you will have better information to actually go out and compare different products.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            PeerSpot user
            Enterprise Solutions Architect at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
            Real User
            Support for JMS and integration with WebSphere Application Server are valuable.
            Pros and Cons
            • "Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7."
            • "They need to add the ability to send full messages (header + payload) from the MQ Explorer program, not just the payload."

            How has it helped my organization?

            The product encourages the idea of asynchronous processing, which means that the sender and receiver are not required to be active and running at the same time. The message will be saved to the receiver queue until the system starts successfully and pulls it for processing. This is typically used in all internet banking functions that receive their data from different bank systems.

            What is most valuable?

            • Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7.
            • Seamless integration with IBM WebSphere Application Server, which is the most stable application server I ever worked with.
            • Installed and configured at Windows, AIX and IBM i mostly the same way and set of commands.

            What needs improvement?

            They need to add the ability to send full messages (header + payload) from the MQ Explorer program, not just the payload.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We have not encountered any stability issues.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We have not encountered any scalability issues.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I would rate the technical support as good, 8/10.

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

            I previously used ActiveMQ, but I switched to IBM MQ due to the robustness of the solution.

            How was the initial setup?

            If you are familiar with IBM products, you will find initial setup straightforward.

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

            IBM MQ has a flexible license model based on the Processor Value Unit (PVU) and I recommend it.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We evaluated Active MQ also.

            What other advice do I have?

            I would advise the potential user to read about security considerations and compliance with security standards.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            solution259344 - PeerSpot reviewer
            solution259344Enterprise Solutions Architect at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
            Real User

            This link from a colleague at IBM, however I found it more than fair:
            https://advantage.ibm.com/2015/03/12/ibm-mq-vs-apache-activemq-performance-comparison-update/

            See all 2 comments
            it_user631656 - PeerSpot reviewer
            System Engineer at Yapi Kredi Bank
            Vendor
            We are using it to integrate systems. It's an asynchronous system.

            What is most valuable?

            Its integration capabilities and the security features are the most valuable features of this product.

            How has it helped my organization?

            We are using it to integrate systems. It's an asynchronous system and there are a lot of benefits of this method for us, so we are using IBM MQ.

            If one of our servers or systems fail, MQ will store the messages for a long time, so we do not lose any information or messages. That's why we are using MQ.

            What needs improvement?

            • Security enhancements
            • Active-active clustering: IBM MQ does not support active-active clustering, but we need that.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It is very stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It is very scalable, and very expensive.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We have used the technical support once or twice; it's good. We opened some tickets and received responses within a short time; so it was okay.

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

            I did not previously use a different solution at my current firm but I have also used Microsoft Queues. However, there were a lot of issues with it in terms of the performance, stability and security. IBM MQ is better.

            How was the initial setup?

            Initial setup was quite straightforward.

            What other advice do I have?

            If you have money, then you can use IBM MQ. It is very expensive.

            We are using almost every vendor such as Oracle, Microsoft, HPE, Solaris, etc. Our core systems are running on WebSphere, i.e., developed in Java code, so we are using most of the IBM tools. But, the most important issue when selecting a vendor is the support.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631668 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Manager Z at BBVA
            Vendor
            It is the main component of our systems for delivering service to our customers.

            What is most valuable?

            It allows us to process online transactions for our customers and we can connect between open system platforms and CID platforms. I think this is the most important.

            How has it helped my organization?

            This is the main component of our systems for delivering service to our customers. Without MQ, we would not be able to work or offer our services.

            What needs improvement?

            I am not working on the solution directly, but my team does, so technically I don't know the solution at the level where I could provide information about areas with room from improvement.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            I'm satisfied with the stability.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Sometimes scaling is not easy because we are trying to connect open systems with mainframe and it's not easy. It is difficult sometimes. I'm not sure about that.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            Technical support is great. We are satisfied. We call them every time we need. I would rate them a nine on a scale of one to ten.

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

            Our support from IBM recommended the solution from the beginning, so this is what we use.

            How was the initial setup?

            In some places, setup is very easy and in others, it is a little bit complex. When we are trying to deliver all of our transactions from web to system CID, it's a little bit complex because the workload is not the same in both platforms. To make this work is sometimes difficult.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We did look at alternatives, but our main platform is from IBM. We were thinking about other vendors but they are smaller, such as Compuware.

            What other advice do I have?

            Well, I think you should try to use MQ. It's a great solution. I like it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631677 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Analyst at Erie Insurance
            Vendor
            It helps us with speed to market.

            What is most valuable?

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

            How has it helped my organization?

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

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            The solution is very stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is there, as well.

            How are customer service and technical support?

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

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

            We were previously using a different solution.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            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.

            What other advice do I have?

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

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user487374 - PeerSpot reviewer
            it_user487374VP Product Management at PeerSpot
            Consultant

            What were other products on your shortlist?

            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
            it_user631710 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Middleware Admin at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It's our messaging bus. We use it for events that are limited to various applications that we have.

            What is most valuable?

            For us, it's basically just our messaging bus. We pretty much use it just for events that are limited to various applications that we have in our company. That is pretty much the use case that we have with respect to the IBM MQ.

            Also, the stability and reliability of the tool system is what makes it really easy to be able to work with.

            How has it helped my organization?

            Technically, it has made our lives a lot easier. Prior to having MQ, we were basically developing these custom in-house solutions, where we were running into a lot of issues. After bringing MQ on board, along with its integration and flexibility that it has provided us with, it has basically shortened the amount of work we had to do in order to get it set up and to get the communications happening in between.

            What needs improvement?

            Maybe it should have something with respect to being able to provide a graphical view of the data elements that we are processing. For example, how many messages are being processed by a certain queue or for how much time each message is staying in the queue, and so forth. If there's a way that IBM can provide this tool that can have this out-of-the-box dashboard feature, it would be helpful.

            Right now, we are trying to build custom solutions so as to gather that information. We are using Dynatrace, which is one of our monitoring solutions. We try to use it to analyze how many messages this queue has processed today and then we are trying to calculate the data for how long did the message stay in the system before the application picked it up. If there is a tool that can actually provide an out-of-the-box solution of this kind, then it would be really efficient for us.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We have not experienced any stability issues. We have been running this for almost about five years now. I don't think, up to this day, we've had any server down issues primarily because of MQ, i.e., the product itself. It's very stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            With respect to scalability, we're not such a big shop where we are continuously scaling up, but it's a pretty standard system for us. We did not really have to do a whole lot. It runs on very bare resources; it's pretty good.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We have had a few scenarios where we were trying to develop some custom security solutions that required MQ to be authenticated, when they are trying to push our consumer messages out. It was not really an issue but more of an enhancement that we were trying to do. That's when we tried to approach IBM and get their inputs on the best way to do this.

            They certainly were very helpful. They provided us with the necessary guidance and showed us some technical documents that were available for our reference and basically, to get the project completed.

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

            Actually, when I joined this company, they already had the solution.

            What other advice do I have?

            First, assess your requirement. Basically, understand what you want to do and that's where it all starts. Doing the right analysis, finding the right solution; that's where success and failure happens.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631758 - PeerSpot reviewer
            MQV Admin at Allstate
            Real User
            When you're doing maintenance, you can fail over the entire group of queue managers in that HA group or you can fail them individually if you'd like.

            What is most valuable?

            I like its ease of administration. We just recently moved to the MQ appliance and the high availability (HA) feature is outstanding. We're really, really pleased with it and the power of the appliance itself. When you throw more work at it, the faster it goes.

            For example, when you're doing maintenance, you can fail over the entire group of queue managers in that HA group or you can fail them individually if you'd like. So, it's very helpful that way. But that's the manual fail over. The automatic fail over is what we are really interested in. We did have an appliance go down. Everything failed over and none of our clients knew of it. So it was very good. We were very pleased with that.

            The user interface is good. The command line version of it, MQ CLI, is good. The web user interface is really handy; really a good feature.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It updated everything. We started with Version 7 with Linux and now, with the appliance, it seems to be bringing us more into the 21st century so to speak.

            What needs improvement?

            We have an M2000. The M2001 has a 3 TB SSD, which is a good feature. I wish they had had it when I started. But as we upgrade, in the future, we'll probably move to that. Everything is working properly with the current version.

            The reason the migrations are an issue is, we came from Version 7.01 and Version 7.5. The security in Version 8 was a little tighter. So, there were a few things we had to learn. Be sure that we were up to speed, so that's all.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We haven’t had any stability problems at all. Stability has been outstanding. We went from multi-instance queue managers, which worked fine, except they worked often. That wasn't good for us. So it was a perceived outage for our clients. The availability has been outstanding with the MQ appliance.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I have used support on several occasions. We were an early adopter, and there are always a few bugs along the way. We did use technical support and we went all the way up to the lab a couple of times. It was outstanding as usual.

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

            We have been an MQ adopter since 1998. We were using z/OS, so we have been using MQ along the way. Then we went to Windows, to Unix, to Linux, and now the appliance.

            How was the initial setup?

            Actually, setup was straightforward. I'm not a hardware person and it was a first-time setup. It was what they said it was. It wasn't a 30-minute setup, but it was pretty easy.

            What other advice do I have?

            Plan your file systems. Plan your messaging names and your network routes. You want to be ready with everything before you start and once you do that, you're in good shape.

            When choosing a vendor, I want knowledge and availability. Those are the two things that are most important.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631680 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Engineer Manager at a wellness & fitness company with 10,001+ employees
            Real User
            High availability and workload balancing are the main two valuable features. Lately, it hasn't been that stable.

            What is most valuable?

            There are a lot of valuable features, such as high availability, and workload balancing. Those are the main two.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It allows different applications to communicate with each other.

            What needs improvement?

            I'd definitely like to see a more-stable high availability feature.

            There is a feature that is in beta right now which synchronously writes messages to another server. That's something that we'd like to see, just for the stability.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            It's been there for a while. We've had it for over 15 years.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Lately, it hasn't been that stable. We're using multi-instance queue managers and we're having a lot of issues with storage and that affects the availability of the queue manager.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is pretty good.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            Support has been good so far. We submit a lot of PMRs and we usually get pretty good response.

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

            I didn't make the decision to invest in this product. There was someone before me that decided.

            How was the initial setup?

            The initial setup was straightforward.

            What other advice do I have?

            Definitely read the manual before you do anything.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631683 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Manager at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It is reliable and I think everybody in my organization is comfortable installing and implementing it.
            Pros and Cons
            • "The thing that I like about MQ most is its reliability. It's one of those types of products that just works. You don't have to tinker around with it too much."
            • "I would just like a more user-friendly experience to do common administration tasks. I know that you can use MQ Explorer, but having something that's already built in would definitely be useful."

            How has it helped my organization?

            It allows us to do point-to-point integration in an easy manner. It allows different applications to talk to each other; applications that may speak different languages. You have mainframe technologies, Java-based apps, .NET, things of that nature, and MQ allows you the ability to share the data between those different types of systems.

            What is most valuable?

            The thing that I like about MQ most is its reliability. It's one of those types of products that just works. You don't have to tinker around with it too much. One of the biggest things that I really look for in a product is from a reliability perspective. Can I count on this to be up 24 hours a day, and do I have to keep hacking around with it? MQ is definitely something that is really reliable, so it's something that I really appreciate it.

            What needs improvement?

            I would just like a more user-friendly experience to do common administration tasks. I know that you can use MQ Explorer, but having something that's already built in would definitely be useful.

            We haven't necessarily experienced any issues from a migration perspective. Typically, where we see the majority of our issues at is when we're doing upgrades to the Message Broker, or IBM Integration Bus is what it's called now. Those two products are typically married together. Most of our issues ... I wouldn't even call them issues. We see some issues when we migrate from different versions in regards to like, IIB. I think that's just because this is a more complex product. You have customized code in there. From an MQ perspective, everything's pretty straightforward.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            I haven't had any stability issues. I think the biggest thing, when there are issues, is having an easy way to figure out what's going on. I think one of the things that I'm looking forward to, from a MQ perspective, is just having more of a user-friendly experience. MQ has traditionally been somewhat of a command-style solution, so anything that they could do to improve that would definitely be helpful.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We have not had any scalability issues.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We have teams that usually interact with IBM. My team doesn't necessarily do that that often but when we do, it's a fairly pleasant experience.

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

            From an MQ perspective, it's something that we've been using for a long time. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with very large companies, it's difficult to transition away from stuff that you built a long time ago, so you have a lot of this stuff that's just hanging around, that's been built a long time ago, and you still have to maintain it. Once something goes into production, it's typically very difficult to get money to update that service five, ten years down the road.

            How was the initial setup?

            Setup was pretty straightforward. MQ has been around for a long time. It's a reliable product. It doesn't change that much, so I think everybody, at least in my organization, is fairly comfortable with installing and implementing MQ.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            MQ was, to me, pretty much the gold standard in regards to what it does. To me there's really no point to look at other vendors.

            What other advice do I have?

            Have a common understanding of why you feel that you need MQ. MQ was something that we implemented years ago, so there may be new technologies out there that you may be able to utilize to make the project you're trying to do easier, and make your implementation a little easier.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631698 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Technical Engineering at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            The asynchronous messaging and assured delivery are valuable features

            What is most valuable?

            The asynchronous messaging and the assured delivery are the most valuable features because your data needs to make it through from one app to the other, and you don't want to lose it.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It's multi-platform, so we can go between mainframe, Unix, Windows, different platforms, and we can have applications send data using the messaging.

            What needs improvement?

            I really can't think of anything that needs improvement. For our company, it does what we need it to do.

            The price is always an issue. Like anything you buy, you want the best deal. We are retailers, so we are always looking at costs. I am sure every company does. It would be nice if the message security and file transfer weren’t an extra cost. But I suppose if you want a deluxe of anything, you will need to pay.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            We've had it for 20 years.

            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 very scalable.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            We don't have to use support very often, but they are responsive.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup.

            What other advice do I have?

            Implement it. It's pretty easy and straightforward.

            I don't do the vendor selection, but I get involved a little bit. When selecting a vendor, I would want ease of administration and installation.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631725 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Application Architect at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Real User
            Access to support resources and to new release information in a timely manner are valuable features.

            What is most valuable?

            • Ease of use
            • Access to support resources
            • Access to new release information in a timely manner
            • Easy to digest

            How has it helped my organization?

            It is easy to use and seamless with our existing technology. It's a trusted name we know that we've used for years. It performs and it has very low downtime, if any.

            What needs improvement?

            With MQ, we always have trouble with the initial priming call failing. It would be nice if we didn't have the little wake-up service. Maybe if it self-monitored, had it's own health monitor, to fire those off upon startup, so we don't have to pay the price for it.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We are happy with the stability.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We have not had any scalability issues to my knowledge.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Our admins have used support in the past. As far as I know, they are satisfied with it. It's pretty solid and it's kind of the backbone of a lot of our stuff.

            How was the initial setup?

            The initial install was a long time ago.

            What other advice do I have?

            Stick with the out-of-the-box requirements, unless something tells you to go in another direction. And if so, definitely work with the vendor to make sure that they give you the adequate tools to do that, or help you scope that out.

            When selecting a vendor, support is the most important criteria.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631782 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Director of Technology at Brownells
            Vendor
            It's solid and it works. The training and scalability clustering could be a little bit easier.

            What is most valuable?

            It's rock solid. It just works. We have to have guaranteed delivery and support. Support is solid as well, knowing that IBM is there. We looked at some open-source products and other competitors, and at the time that we made the decision, IBM was the one that had the largest support structure. Rock-solid performance really is the most solid feature of it.

            How has it helped my organization?

            We had to integrate different systems and MQ allowed us to send messages between systems and guarantee delivery. What that did is allow us to more easily integrate those systems and feel 100% trust in this solution.

            What needs improvement?

            From an MQ perspective, if they had some built-in monitoring, built-in dashboards, maybe some web-enabled functions so we don't have to load specific tools on our workstations. The training and scalability clustering could be a little bit easier. They could also make it failover- and fault-tolerant. The training aspect is a big part. I think IBM maybe has some work to do on the training side a little bit.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability is great. Stability is rock solid. We have very few issues with it.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability: We're a smaller shop so we don't have the resources necessarily to take care of it. Scaling out MQ is possible, but it's not as easy as some other products. It's not as easy as other technologies even.

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

            We were not previously using a different solution. The business challenged the pattern we used. Using queuing and messaging presented itself as the best solution.

            When choosing a vendor, we want support, access to information, solid products, and, hopefully, building blocks where we can build on and use other products and foundation.

            How was the initial setup?

            Setup was more complex than what I thought it might be. We have an active-active cluster, meaning that the systems will fail over to each other if they need to. It was more complicated to set up. We had difficulties setting that up initially, even with consultant help.

            What other advice do I have?

            I would go back to the rock solid performance. If you can get through the setup and the learning curve with the product, it will just run and work for you. That would be the advice I would give.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user631794 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Principal Integration Architect at Sabre
            Consultant
            It is robust and scalable. We can keep adding solutions to the mixture and it still performs as is.
            Pros and Cons
            • "It is very robust and very scalable."
            • "At a recent conference, I went to a presentation that had the latest version and it has amazing stuff that's coming out. So, I am excited to use those, specifically surrounding the web console and the fact that it's API integrated."

            How has it helped my organization?

            It provides scalability and it also provides secure messaging.

            What is most valuable?

            It is very robust and very scalable.

            What needs improvement?

            At a recent conference, I went to a presentation that had the latest version and it has amazing stuff that's coming out. So, I am excited to use those, specifically surrounding the web console and the fact that it's API integrated.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We have stability in our environment because of the product. We can keep adding solutions to the mixture and it still performs as is, which is again a more stable process.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It provides scalability.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I usually deal with level three support and they're pretty awesome; so, they're very good. I rate them 5/5.

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

            There was not a previous solution. I know because of experience with my other jobs that this is a more robust technology to invest in.

            How was the initial setup?

            Setup was straightforward. I had experience from my previous work, so I was able to bring that experience and implement it here. I was fully versed with it, so it was easier for me.

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

            It's super expensive, so ask them if they can consolidate some other licensing costs. But, IBM is IBM, so I guess we'll pay for it.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            IBM was on the top of our short list. I didn't even look at the others, because I am biased.

            What other advice do I have?

            I would do a PoC with IBM and there's a lot of technical help out there and people who would come to help you. So, use them and also look for other customers who have used the product. Then, you will be able to see the benefits of it and try to fit it in to your department.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523137 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Power System Specialists at Fiserv
            Real User
            Instead of sending files, you just send messages, whatever the transaction is.

            What is most valuable?

            It can do messaging throughout multiple platforms. That's the major benefit for MQ. At the same time, we use it quite extensively to do messages between the iSeries and the mainframe.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The amount of transactions: You don't have to send a file down. You just send the messages; whatever the transaction is. It's going to be much more effective and more trackable.

            What needs improvement?

            It's pretty good right now the way it is.

            I don't know whether it is available with the new features, but in the older versions, I remember, to test a queue, you actually had to call an API to send messages back and forth. If that would be a one-command scenario like on the iSeries, instead of me calling the API, sending a message and receiving it, I would like to have something like that. I don't know if MQ’s new features support something like this.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability’s pretty good. I haven't had any issues. Although, in clustering, you have to know exactly what you're doing. Otherwise, your cluster will be out of whack a little bit. Otherwise, it's stable. It's very stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            You can scale it anywhere.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            I have not really used technical support in the last year.

            When I did, I've had experiences with channels not starting up, either due to connectivity issues which turned out to be either network-related. The messages are really clearly defined and errors are logged, so we referenced that and based on that, we took action.

            When we do contact technical support, they're excellent; 5/5.

            How was the initial setup?

            Because I had worked with it before, initial setup wasn't that bad. If I look at myself at the beginning, when we wanted to set it up, I actually went and took a course before setting it up. Especially on the iSeries side and all the communications, you have to get familiar with all the terms and terminology that are being used on the application. Once you know that, then setting it up is not a big deal.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's very easy to set up, it's very stable and it's trackable. MQ is a really good tool to be able to send messages back and forth between multiple platforms. If they're looking for a solution for sending files across, they can actually use MQ to send the messages across.

            I haven’t given it a perfect rating because there's always room for improvement.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is being strong and supporting it, and being there for a number of years, so I don't have to worry about an unsupported product.

            We use it mainly on iSeries and mainframe, so I’m not really involved in using MQ to connect across cloud, mobile, and devices as part of the intranet of things.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523176 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Head of IT Department at BBAC
            Real User
            It helps us integrate applications around PowerVM.

            What is most valuable?

            Stability and reliability are the most valuable features. It's very reliable and very stable. You can do a fast recovery in case of any failure. It's a very consistent and stable system.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The whole integration channel between PowerVM and third-party applications goes through MQ. This is why MQ plays the role of middleware, of integration, and it helps us to quickly integrate all applications around PowerVM.

            What needs improvement?

            One possible area with room for improvement is some integration with the alert system to alert us in case of any failure of any message to be transmitted from one source to another; maybe that could help. It doesn't do that right now.

            We will see how MQ will help us when we go to cloud, one day.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It’s very stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We have never faced any problem with upgrading or scalability between MQ series and the IBM the PowerVM. It's good.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Once you install MQ, you don't need a lot of support. Of course, we have support with an IBM partner in our country, but up until now, we have never faced a major issue that could impact our business.

            What about the implementation team?

            Implementation was very straightforward.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            Our environment is 60% IBM. We did not shop to search for another solution.

            In general, though, the most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are support, response time, credibility, to be near to us, and that they are not working from the cloud.

            What other advice do I have?

            In a financial institution, for very critical applications, when you invest, you have to invest one time. You don't have time to redo the work over and over. When you build your setup, your infrastructure, to do your service and your financial service for mission-critical applications, you have to choose the best-of-breed application that supports you. This is why we choose IBM without any hesitation.

            We have never faced any problem. It works fine.

            We are a bank, and regulations restrict us from using the cloud, at this point. We're using MQ only on our data center.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523179 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Systems Manager with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            It's reliable and gives us flexibility to drive a solution on any platform.

            What is most valuable?

            I inherited it when I took over administration of a platform. It is pretty core in our business. I haven't really dealt with configuration that much. It is used to push transactions throughout z/OS, IBM i, Windows, and Linux. It seems to be pretty reliable. It's one of the few things we have that just runs, almost to a point where you forget to go back and do some upgrades. We're running a couple versions that are a little old, and you just forget that; like, "Oh yeah, it's running." It's pretty solid.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It gives us flexibility to drive a solution on any platform but have a reliable communication network.

            What needs improvement?

            I didn't know how to get into it. I had to Google how to get into it. Once I got into it, it made sense. It was a green-screen implementation, but it made sense.

            I don't know enough about it to really say, "This is where it's missing something."

            You can always say price is an area with room for improvement.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It's solid. It's one of the few things that just runs, and runs, and runs.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We've upgraded multiple systems and it's kind of come along. As far as the transaction basis that it's responsible for, it's done a really good job. There might be some lagging Windows versions; that's really been more about operating systems lagging behind because of other applications, not MQ. You might get some spots there, where performance might not be what we would've expected, but that's really not an MQ issue.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            We have hardly ever used technical support for it. The last time we did, we found out that we were running an unsupported release. That kind of shows how long it just runs. Sometimes you forget to upgrade a couple of the components.

            When I have used technical support, I thought it was very good. They even reached out and helped us a little bit in that situation – when we weren't even supported – to take a look at some of the basic stuff, just to make sure we didn't miss anything. Eventually, we got through the situation. We figured out what it was. It turned out it wasn't MQ at all. It was just a configuration change. I think tech support has been pretty good.

            I'm an IBM i guy. I always think IBM support is excellent. I haven't dealt with z/OS in a long time, but they were good there, too. The product support, I would imagine, has been pretty good, too.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's a worthwhile product. If it's priced accordingly and does everything for you, go for it. It's a good product.

            I haven’t given it a perfect rating because I haven't had enough experience with it to say, "This is where it's lacking something." As I’ve mentioned, it seems to be really solid and just works.

            The most important criteria for you when selecting a vendor is probably the durability of the vendor. You can get into these relationships that look good, with all good intentions from them, but they're not around. With IBM, obviously, we've invested heavily in the company for a long time. We have a good relationship with them. I think durability, and then going with that is innovation. Those are probably the two biggest characteristics.

            I don't know that much about our mobile and cloud initiatives. I think we have some. They're probably beyond the infancy stage but certainly not mature at any point. I'm not sure how this technology is driving any of that. I'm not sure.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523134 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Infrastructure Services Lead - Mainframe and Enterprise Batch at Rogers Communications
            Vendor
            It provides transaction speed and is efficient from a CPU utilization perspective.

            What is most valuable?

            For Rogers, MQ is the cornerstone for the billing system for cable. It's accessed through the help desk and through the online stores. It's a very valuable piece of software that interfaces with the customers; there are well over 8 million customers.

            How has it helped my organization?

            Using MQ, because of the speed of getting the transactions, adds the value back to the customers. When you are dealing with a customer in the store, you don't want to be sitting and waiting for transactions to come back on the customer information, the CIF file. Having MQ with the instant response adds value back to the customer's experience.

            What needs improvement?

            Price is one thing that could be improved.

            Probably because I don't know how it interfaces with the cloud, I would like to see more of that functionality; get more of the cloud experience and more of the mobile experience back into MQ from the customers. That's something I don't have right now.

            I think MQ could go farther in terms of the customer experience.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability is awesome. MQ is up all the time. We never have an MQ issue. The interfaces that feed into MQ are quite stable and the APIs associated with it are quite proficient. MQ is a very efficient piece of software from a CPU utilization perspective, which I'm interested in. It's very productive and it's quite tuned in terms of performance.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It's quite easy to scale out and to build other regions using MQ. We've developed a peak performance testing area with MQ and we're planning on putting it in the sandbox area to gain more experience before we roll out versions of it. It's quite easy and adaptable to implement into other regions.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            I have not used technical support.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's a very stable product. It's been out in the industry for years. Many industries use it, so it fits into any commodity that you have. It's a very solid product. Give it a try, look at it and understand what it's used for.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are reputation, post-support, reliability, and improvements on the product.

            They’re not really using MQ to connect across cloud, mobile, or devices as part of the internet of things.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523113 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Large System Administrator at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            We use it for a lot of real-time information between our systems.

            What is most valuable?

            Obviously, the biggest thing is that we’ll never lose a message. We use it for a lot of real-time information between our systems for integration, where we cannot lose data during that point in time, because then we lose track of inventory, our manufacturing systems, sales orders and things like that.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It's reliable. It's a solid foundation. It’s always up and running. MQ doesn't crash on us. It gives us the stability of the platform to be able to do all of the integration between our applications.

            What needs improvement?

            The user interface might be an area with room for improvement, but we use MQ Explorer and that helps solve a lot of our problems there.

            On my test systems, I have over 150 queues; maybe a better way to manage those and to see them visually instead of just one long list.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            We started using MQ back in 1996.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It’s up 24/7.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We haven't had any scalability issues. We keep adding more applications to it all the time.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We use technical support only when there are problems, which is very rare. It's always been good when I've had to call them; responsive, efficient.

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

            I was partially involved in the decision process to invest in MQ. We were not previously using something else. We were actually early adopters, really and truly. We started using MQ back in 1996. We've been using it ever since then.

            How was the initial setup?

            Initial setup was straightforward.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            At that time, there were no other vendors on our shortlist.

            The most important criteria for you when selecting a vendor to work with is obviously that it is a stable company; a vendor that will be around for a while. Those kinds of things.

            What other advice do I have?

            Take a look at it. It's well worth the effort to play with it and to understand it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523161 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Manager at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
            Real User
            It can integrate applications on different platforms and different technologies

            What is most valuable?

            The integration it provides makes a lot of stuff easier. There are a lot of ways to integrate things but it works on a lot of different platforms and with a lot different technologies.

            How has it helped my organization?

            We've been able to get some disparate applications that weren't originally written to be integrated, but we've been able to make that happen.

            What needs improvement?

            I use the character-based interface for things but a lot of my peers like the GUI. Maybe there's a GUI available that I'm not aware of but that would be something that would facilitate it for some other people. Any kind of GUI; it could be on a phone or a browser or whatever. As far as I know, that is currently lacking, but maybe I just don't know. I primarily use the character-based interface for management when I work with it.

            Because you can only put so much information on a text screen, sometimes you have to kind of shift views to look at things. That's something that, I imagine, if there was a GUI interface, you could do that a lot more easily. That would be an enhancement, I guess.

            To some extent, it just runs in the background and you kind of forget about it. You don't really think about what else you could do with it. It’s just kind of running there.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It's rock solid.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            I don't think we've tested the really high-end but it handles everything we can throw at it.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            We have used technical support very occasionally. It's gone well when we've called, but we really haven't had too many opportunities.

            What other advice do I have?

            Give it a try. It's not hard to do a proof of concept, get something going and build on that. You'll find that it's pretty easy to work with and it does a lot for you.

            The only reason I haven’t given it a perfect rating is probably because I don't know everything it can do. I probably could take better advantage of it, but I might not be doing that right now.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is reliability. I've got to trust that the product will do what they say, that they'll be able to support it, and that they'll be around in 5 or 10 years when I'm still using it. I kind of lump that into reliability. When I invest in something, I want it to be there and still working later on.

            We are not using MQ to connect across cloud, mobile and devices as part of the internet of things. We don't do that on this project. The barrier to success is that nobody's interested. It's that blunt.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523110 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Infrastructure Manager at Royal Caribbean International
            Vendor
            It manages communication between systems sitting on Linux or AIX and the "mother ship", our reservation system.

            What is most valuable?

            The multiple queuing features, so that everything that we use for talking to our reservation system, the main system we use it for; whatever systems that are sitting on Linux or other environments such as AIX, and then talking to iSeries, which is our “mother ship”, the reservation system. The most valuable features are being able to handle those multiple queues and being able to scale properly.

            How has it helped my organization?

            Before we used MQ, basically it was more of a batch job, sending and receiving messages; kind of like an upload, download type of thing. Now, it's real time, where we can effectively handle millions of transactions an hour, once we implemented MQ.

            What needs improvement?

            My only thing for improvement would be the way that we've got it configured. I don't know if it's capabilities and using those capabilities. I feel that we installed it a little bit, say, out of the box. There's a different way we could set up some queue management, that we could do better. It's partly us, but probably using some outside resources to look at our transaction volume and flow. We set it up probably eight years ago and we haven't really changed it since. Our business has changed.

            I would just like it to be more resilient. In that area, if there is something that happens, it would alert us better or reset itself automatically, which is the greatest thing, where it tells you, "Hey, there's a problem, but by the way, I've already taken care of it. Just so you know. " That's where I see we've had to do more application monitoring around that to do the actual queue management; understanding that something is wrong. It could help us do that. I lose sleep at night, because of, if we have issues.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It is extremely stable.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is fantastic, basically because of the Power Systems. It scales along with whatever environment it's sitting on.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            We've had problem tickets and things that we've called in to analyze issues. The good part is that it never really was an MQ issue. It was some other issue that came out, but we would get them involved and they would be able to diagnose. It helped us a lot.

            Their response was quick; very quick response and very detailed response. Basically, they usually do captures, send in the data and do the analysis. Usually, within 24 hours, we got the information back we needed.

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

            They were really just doing batch file uploads, downloads; probably a couple different things versus MQ. It was a big implementation from IBM. They partnered with us, also to help us. We also started slow and then used it in other areas as well.

            What other advice do I have?

            I highly recommend it, but I also highly recommend getting services with the actual product to make sure it's implemented correctly.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is truly being a partner; taking a little bit of the ownership; not just reading from the book of suggestions – because we can read that same book – but really understanding all of our environments, how we do business, make recommendations and implement them. That is important: not just making recommendations; doing it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523173 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Director IT Platform Engineering at Staples
            Vendor
            I think the most valuable feature is the scale that it can run at.

            What is most valuable?

            I think the most valuable feature is the scale that it can run at. It runs millions of transactions in our environment on a daily basis, scales and works well.

            How has it helped my organization?

            I don't know if it improved my organization but it basically drives communications between a lot of our subsystems and processes. It's kind of the backbone of a lot of our services.

            What needs improvement?

            I think some of the management tools could be improved. We've got a variety of different management tools, that we have in place. Having them be more a core part of a product, rather than being add-ons from either other solutions or open source, would be good.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability is very good.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Technical support is good. For the most part, we get what we need. We did have AVP for a number of years, which was another level of support. We're reconsidering that maybe we should be going back to that level just for the more timeliness and quality of support.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            There are a lot of open-source alternatives coming out now, today. Sometimes MQ can be perceived in the organization as being expensive. Price is an issue.

            Where we've deployed other open-source solutions, we're not at the same scale so it's difficult to say at this point whether they do as good of a job as MQ. Obviously, we're very conservative in taking some of our core systems and moving them to unproven technologies.

            There aren’t any features that they have that I wish MQ had as well. They actually tend to be a little lighter weight than MQ, in a bad way.

            What other advice do I have?

            Make sure that whatever solution you have is going to scale to meet your needs and that you have the tooling infrastructure available to you, as well.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is, obviously, quality. Reliability of the product is number one but it needs to be cost effective, as well.

            We haven't really moved into the cloud with MQ at this point.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523158 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Director IT Business Systems Applications at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            We use it for real-time claims processing through a non-host platform into the host platform.

            What is most valuable?

            • Guaranteed message delivery
            • Easy to use
            • Works for both distributed and host applications

            How has it helped my organization?

            It allows us to do real-time claims processing through a non-host platform into the host platform.

            What needs improvement?

            A better user interface; right now, it's technician dependent, so it's a tech support role. It would be nice if we could provide better interfaces to see the queues, the channels and how they're used, and the queue depths.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            We've been using it for 25-30 years.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It is solid. We have no stability problems with MQ.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It's solid, and it scales.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            I personally have not used technical support. As a corporation, we have, and it is solid.

            What other advice do I have?

            If you have the right technologist, it's a good tool.

            It works. It scales. It does what we need it to do. It's stable. It's a technology that, again, is platform agnostic.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is: Is it a partner or is it someone that's just looking to get paid?

            We are not using MQ to connect across cloud, mobile, and devices as part of the internet of things, so much. It's more for internal.

            The barrier to success is that I haven't had a business need to use MQ. We use DataPower instead.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523119 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Director, Computing Services at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Consultant
            When we go to different reports, it queues everything up, waits, and then releases it when we're ready.

            What is most valuable?

            We use it in a number of our applications for message queuing. As a broker dealer, it gives us the ability to queue things up and to send them out at a different time; and it works really well. We go to different reports, and get options and other features from other areas, so we need to queue up the MQ piece of it, have it wait, and then release it when we're ready to release it. That's a great feature.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It gives us flexibility when it comes to offering different projects or different types of solutions to customers. Instead of somebody having to sit back and wait for something, we give them the option now to be able to say, "Hey, we can give you these 10 things, and you can get all 10 back," without having them get six now, and come back later to get something else. They can get everything at one time and it looks like one portfolio of stuff versus it being six or seven different things at one time. MQ gives us that feature.

            What needs improvement?

            It's probably more like everything else. We're running into this world where everything – MQ, mainframe – is looked at as legacy. I know that it's not, but if it could be a little more GUI-based; if it could be a little bit easier to manage.

            I hire people who work for me who are in their 70s all the way to people who are in their 20s. For people in their 20s, when they're working on the mainframe, when they're working on those kinds of MQ solutions, they don't really get it. Sometimes they want to run to something else or use something else. If it was a little bit more user friendly, or more gen-x friendly maybe, that would be the best benefit. The tools work. All the tools on the mainframe, all the tools that are considered legacy or dinosaur tools, they do a great job. They stay up; they run. They're very reliable. They're very scalable.

            The amount of work that these things do is just amazing. You don't have to reboot them every time there's a problem. You don't have to have 20 people look at 20 different things. It's usually two or three people, "This is what the problem is", and you fix it and you move on. It's a very good toolset. But having somebody younger be able to work on it would be really, really helpful.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            We've used it for many, many years. We use it on the client, a regular Windows platform. We also use it really, really heavily on the mainframe side, and it's very stable. We've had very few problems with it. When we do have problems with it, it's usually the application, not the actual MQ solution.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            I haven't had any scalability problems. Most of the things, if there is a problem with scalability, it's because we haven't turned it on or we haven't done it ourselves. When we actually promote the features that are there, when we have the time to dig down and turn those things on and release those things, we don't have any problem scalability-wise.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            We've had times where we've had to actually open up PMRs and things like that. But for MQ, it's very, very rare. We use CICS; we use WebSphere itself; we use DB2; so, we use a ton of other IBM features. With MQ there are very, very, very few problems.
            When we do use tech support, they're very responsive 99% of the time. There might be one or two times where maybe something new will come out and they might have to come out with an actual fix or something, and develop it. It might take a little time to do that but usually, it's very responsive; very good thing.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not involved in the initial setup. I was a DB2 engineer, a systems programmer, for many years. Then I moved into management, into the middleware area, which had CICS, MQ, and other products. Then I actually moved up into a director and now, I'm director of mainframe services. I wasn't involved in the actual initial setup.

            Some of the things have been around for 20 years or so, but I've been involved in probably five or six upgrades, other deployments and other feature turn-ons that MQs contributed to. I was heavily involved with that, but not as far as bringing it up and installing it from the beginning, no.

            It was already there when I came to the company some 13 years ago; already in place. But I've managed it for probably 8-9 years.

            What other advice do I have?

            I know open source is a big thing these days. I know a lot of people are talking about going out and buying open-source things or trying open-source things. I say, “Stick to products that have been around, that have been proven, and that you have the support of a vendor behind you who's willing to look at these things and develop around you.” IBM isn't a perfect company. It's got a lot to deal with, when you talk about other startups and other people trying to do the same things that it's been doing for a number of years, but in the long run, it's a good company, and I would say "stick with it".

            For MQ and products that have been proven, people need to take the leap and use some of these things in the cloud, use it with Linux, and use some of the new features that IBM has. I work on a mainframe. It's a powerful machine. It does millions and millions of transactions every second, and it just doesn't miss a beat. If it has enough CPU, enough power behind it, it will just crank out, and it just does it day and night. I'd say stick with the true, hard-driven, really dedicated solution.

            I have worked in the industry for many years. I worked on the mainframe side when I first started. I went into the distributed side years after that. I'm talking 20 years, and then another 13 or 14 years after that, and I went back into the mainframe world. I've dealt with a lot of products, a lot of different solutions, and there have probably been three or four that do what they're supposed to do and not have a lot of problems. MQ's probably one of the quieter ones.

            Sometimes you put something the wrong platform. Sometimes it's not configured right, and you hit some bumps in the road in that way. I did it with WebSphere; I did it with DB2; I've done it with CICS; I've done it with SAS; I've done it with a lot of solutions; Windows, networking, storage. I've managed all those different areas and MQ's a very quiet product. It does what it's supposed to do.

            When it hiccups and has a problem, it's usually because someone did something wrong or wrote something wrong, and now it's more of a victim, and it needs to get corrected. Once that gets corrected, it does what it's supposed to do. I don't want to give anything a perfect rating because nothing is perfect, but it's a really great product. It doesn't do a lot of stuff, but it does what it's supposed to do, and that's the main thing.

            In general, when I’m looking to select a vendor to work with, I need a vendor who really understands my customers and my needs. I know it's hard sometimes to build a solution that fits everyone's needs, but when I buy something I want someone to be able to couple with me and help me through this process. Every problem that I have, every little road bump that I run into, I want someone there to hold my hand. Engineers are good; administrators are great. These guys will come up with solutions but when there's a problem, I want somebody there to help me; to take responsibility.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523155 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Senior Technical Architect at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Vendor
            With MQ FTE, we've been moving away from other file transfer options.

            What is most valuable?

            Scalability and guaranteed delivery are the most valuable features. It's pretty straightforward to scale out. We use MQ to back our enterprise service bus. Guaranteed delivery is very important for most of the data that we send. Having a product that enables that is very valuable to us.

            How has it helped my organization?

            My organization has used MQ for a long time. It is a very scalable, common platform that we can use for sending messages. We use MQ in terms of messaging, MQTT, and MQ FTE for file transfers. It's versatile; it's very functional; and it provides us with a common messaging platform. It eases our integration.

            With the introduction of MQ FTE, we've been moving away from other file transfer options, and standardizing the actual large file transfers with MQ FTE versus the previous product that we had. We've standardized on MQ FTE, in terms of shutting down basic transfers like FTP and other basic ways of transferring large files. Adding the MQ FTE functionality, on top of the MQ backbone, has been nice.

            What needs improvement?

            The product itself is not difficult to use. I guess you could always ask for a little bit better GUI admin console. All in all, it's not hard to use.

            In a large organization like ours, sometimes we have a large MQ installation base; lots of connection points. If there was a more graphical representation, in terms of looking at the overall landscape of where we have MQ implemented, that you could drill in and out; that would be nice. A picture’s worth a thousand words, a lot of the time; if it was more graphical in terms of displaying the overall topology and layout of the MQ infrastructure we have; just from a high-level, admin-type view; just an easier way of looking at things.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It's very stable. It's been around forever. They have functions and features that are useful. Core-wise, it's a very stable product.

            What other advice do I have?

            I'd probably recommend going with MQ. Don’t waste time with some of the other products out there. We constantly re-evaluate our portfolio and solutions; test things; and do comparative work. We've had other vendors come in, and we've run tests with them or even done limited deployments. Sometimes we buy a package and it comes with either Oracle's OSB, webMethods, or another integration platform, if you will, with their own version of their bus and messaging. Those mostly stay point-contained solutions, and that's for a reason. For the cost and everything you factor in, MQ is a pretty good product.

            It's a great product. The only bad thing I could ever say about MQ is sometimes finding the right talent to administer it. It's a bit of a specialized skill set. Sometimes you can have challenges finding somebody that's really a competent admin. Other than that, it's a great product.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with depends on the product. The company's financial stability, their ability to scale to an organization of our size, is very important. Depending on the project, when you're reaching into new territory, sometimes it is looking at and evaluating who does have the best or most innovative approach to solving a problem.

            We use MQTT, which is an open standard but works with MQ for the smaller messaging, for a lot of our messaging across the enterprise service bus that connects our digital or customer-facing activities back to our older, more legacy-based systems. It gives us a good interface.

            We don't really have any barrier to success; we're pretty successful with it.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523131 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Sr Project Manager - Infrastructure Delivery (Mainframe Services) at a hospitality company with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Real User
            Guaranteed delivery, even when there are disruptions.

            What is most valuable?

            The most valuable feature is the fact that it's guaranteed delivery; it's conversational. A lot of our transactions are basically transactions back and forth between either rewards members, reservations and even between our databases. MQ gives us guaranteed delivery.

            How has it helped my organization?

            We're an IBM mainframe user. It folds into our hardware very well. Our support is covered that way. It's kind of an end-to-end type solution. It works well with the distributed partners. We use WebSphere, so we can go ahead, plug things in and they work.

            What needs improvement?

            They might be able to improve the monitoring features. When you're looking at distributed platforms, you're looking at different breakpoints to it. MQ has a good support structure, but it would be nice if they could kind of fold MQ into other tools to make it more resilient for other tools, other relationships, and other non-IBM platforms.

            That's probably the strongest piece: being able to support the other customers. Eventually, if we can support them end-to-end and tell them where their problems are, we can bring them into our fold and make it an IBM fold.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability is unrivaled. We've got no problems with it. It's like the mainframes. When you're looking at five nines for availability, it's there all the time. MQ is there all the time. If we have a problem, it's not part of the conversation. It's more of a case of a database on the other end that we're using as a repository is having a problem. You can go out there, store the messages, and guarantee delivery if there are any interruptions. It just works for us.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            It's plug and play. If you need more, you can figure it out on the fly; you can add end points to it. The fact that you can add connections makes it very easy for us, because a lot of times we'll run into an issue where we get spikes in connectivity. We can go ahead and define something on the fly. We can go ahead and throw in the extra conversation, and queues aren't a problem at either end. The fact that we can reduce queues by adding extra channels is a great plus for us.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            We have only rarely used technical support, because you don't really need it. When we have used it, it's been very good. The SLAs and everything that we've got for tech support is being met. We've also been using it long enough that we've got some very solid support, as far as, we know who to talk to and when to talk to. It's been great for us.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was not really involved in the initial setup. I was probably around for it, but I had an applications background. I went from the systems side to the applications side, and back to the systems side. It was kind of the interim period. I'm not really responsible for the MQ right now. I'm more of a user of MQ and a supporting group. As a mainframe user, we basically have that relationship with them.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            It's actually not a decision to use MQ, but maybe to expand MQ in some cases. It also is one of those places where you can't really go wrong by saying, “We're going to use MQ,” because it's proven.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is probably stability. Relationships are important, but we're looking at up time. The better the up time is, the stronger we are, the better our product is, the better we are in front of customers. It used to be, when you were basically just facing other employees in the company, that's one experience. Now that you're facing the user with the dot-com boom, the world out there, everybody's on the end of a phone, our transaction counts have gone up exponentially. To have that relationship, and to have MQ being able to service what they service and support that expansion has been fantastic.

            What other advice do I have?

            Consider the pros and cons. For us, it’s reliability; it’s stability; it’s reputation. Do not get hung up on the fact that it is one of those "legacy"-type connectivities. A lot of people might not want to look at MQ, look at IBM or look at something because “that's the old way of doing things.” It's the current way of doing things. It's a leading-edge way of doing things, and the fact that it's there 100% of the time.

            I'm not sure anybody’s perfect. They're very good at what they do. If they can play well with others, that's the real part of it right now. We're using WebSphere; we're using the mainframe; we're using the distributed side. As long as they can play with everybody, they're going to be a strong player. We'll be a strong proponent for them.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523128 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Architect at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            We use it to transfer a lot of big files. It's scalable.

            What is most valuable?

            We use it right now for transferring a lot of big files. Sometimes, for some reason, the file doesn't get all the way to the other side. We do it between different cities. MQ keeps track of it and gets it all done. We at least know if it was half-done or not. We also have scheduled jobs through ESB, but it doesn't send that kind of notification to us. It says whether the script has run or not run. That's all we get. This has been a better product.

            Besides that, we do a lot of our jobs through it. We queue them and run them.

            How has it helped my organization?

            These files are critical. They have to reach the whole file. Sometimes, a half file gets the same name and gets processed as a half file. The result is like replenishing all those files. The results are really screwy if you get half files. Since started using MQ, we haven't seen this.

            What needs improvement?

            In some cases, when a file got transferred, it has same name on both sides. That could have something to do with the product or it could have to do with something else. We are working on it. That's confusing. I would like that improved. If it didn't appear with the same name, that would definitely be better.

            For how long have I used the solution?

            We've been using it for 8-10 years.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It's very stable. We've been using it for quite some time now, 8-10 years.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We started with very few. Stability’s good. It's scalable all the way. It meets our requirements.

            How is customer service and technical support?

            Technical support is very good. Whenever we have a question, they are very responsive.

            What other advice do I have?

            We've been using MQ for so many years. It's been really, really working great for us. I recommend it rather than looking at other solutions.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is that the product has to be good. Second, the support has to be really good and the people working with it should be genuine, and not just come up with what you want to hear. They have to be genuine. Sometimes the product is good, the support is good, but the people are not.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523152 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Director Of Technology at Compuware
            Vendor
            A Windows or a Linux person can fully communicate with the z/OS system, or vice versa, without needing extra knowledge of the other systems.

            What is most valuable?

            For us, the most valuable feature is the fact that we can move data from disparate systems quite easily. It's not a mountain of data for us, because of the nature of our business, but it's critical that we move information through the queues, from many varying different systems.

            How has it helped my organization?

            It makes it much easier to have people from different experience levels be able to interface with one another, without having to be cross-trained on many different platforms. A business benefit is, it can take somebody who's a Windows guy or a Linux guy, and he can fully communicate with the z/OS system, or vice versa, without having to have that extra knowledge of those other systems.

            What needs improvement?

            For our internal systems and connecting things together, it works really well. If we're trying to connect to something in the web or other things, we don't use it, because we feel that REST or other APIs are more easily adaptable to that environment. Perhaps; I'm not even sure how MQ could do that.

            For instance, one of the things we do is, we collect social media data; the public APIs. We're doing a REST call; we're getting back a JSON object. If there was a way that we could do that, perhaps with MQ; set up a way that it could go out, collect the information that we need, and bring it back as a queue, as opposed to a JSON object. That might be something beneficial.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability is a hallmark of the product. It's extremely reliable. We set up a queue and we say, “Go,” and we have virtually zero issues with it. Considering that it's interfacing with multiple different products, it's remarkably reliable.

            It's one of those things where, if somebody says there's a problem, you're like, "What? That can't be possible." We really haven't really had any outages to speak of.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            We don't have a tremendous transaction volume, but obviously, the scalability is a factor that many large organizations would have to work on. I think that the transaction volume, in some of the testing we've done for performance and things like that, have shown that is a very, extremely reliable product at scale.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I'm not sure that we've really had to use technical support for WebSphere MQ. We’ve figured out how to do it. We've known how to use MQ, set up queues and so on, for a long time. They interface well with our products. We really don't need the support, which I guess is a hallmark of how simple it is to use the product.

            We might have had some issues with installation, or some initial setup calls. Once it's gone live, we've really not had to ask for help, had a queue break, or had transmissions not happen.

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

            We've had MQ for a long, long time. It was something that we've always supported.

            How was the initial setup?

            The people on my team were involved in the initial setup, absolutely. There was a little bit of complexity involved with the mainframe section, around some general ways that the thing is implemented in the system, and things that have to happen early on during the IPL and some other processes that we have. That's the part I'm most familiar with. The other platforms it's run on, I'm not sure.

            In general, once we got through some of those issues, it was pretty straightforward.

            What other advice do I have?

            If you have a lot of internal systems that you rely on passing queue transactional data, and queuing data back and forth between a lot of systems, it's definitely a very reliable, very robust, very easy-to-use product. It's a very eloquent way of providing a solution to the problem of having disparate systems talk to each other.

            I think it's a very stable product. It works well. It does exactly what you think it's going to do. It scales well. It's easy for the application people that use it to identify with it, and know what they're doing. My rating is primarily based on all those things, and the reliability.

            Honestly, selecting a vendor to work with is different than how we chose a product, in general. Pricing is always an option, but stability, support, the willingness of the vendor to cooperate if you need help, and other things like that are important. It's different than it was a long time ago. Most of the time now, you deal with the fact that companies have only been around for a few years.

            It used to be that somebody had to be around 10 or 15 years before you would invest in it and believe in it. Now, very strong companies have only been around for one or two years, and have very vibrant products. When dealing with a vendor, it's how willing they are to listen to the customer; how dynamic they can be in enhancing their products; how quickly they can implement features and functions into their products; how strong their support is if you do have problems; and how well the product operates without having an intense learning curve, or a lot of training necessary. It's how elegantly the vendor delivered the product, the documentation; all those things kind of speak to the vendor themselves.

            We don't directly use MQ for cloud, mobile, and devices as part of the internet of things. We use direct REST calls. We use z/OS Connect and other mainframe-related REST services. We're generating APIs in order to connect to the internet, and to connect to cloud-based services.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523116 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Application Architect Lead at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            Integration with a specific vendor product and stability are valuable.

            What is most valuable?

            Integration with my vendor product is the most valuable feature. The vendor strongly prefers MQ. We had a lot of configuration issues when we tried other products. The second-most valuable feature is the stability.

            How has it helped my organization?

            The reliability is a benefit. We rely on it to operate our business. The fact that it's stable enables us to run our business.

            What needs improvement?

            With the tooling around being able to see what's in the queue, we found third-party products to be friendlier than the out-of-the-box products, as far as, "Let me see what the content is of the object that's on the queue." I want to actually be able to see what's on the queue, and the tools we were given from IBM or from the representatives were terrible. I guess that would be the thing I’d like to see. I've got the third-party products that I use now and it’s at the operating-system level, but that would be the suggestion.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            It is very stable. We’ve had outages and downtime but, out of about 9,000 servers, we'll have a couple go down a month. Overall, that's pretty good.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability hasn't been a problem. We have a highly distributed environment. We run it across a large server farm. Each server has its own instance. I don't try to scale it vertically, so I don't have a vertical problem with it, and it scales fine across.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            Technical support is very disappointing. They didn't respond. Then, we nagged them a lot. We basically got, "That's why you should just upgrade to the latest version of IBM. That's a known problem with the stack. You should just upgrade. Why are you still so far behind?"

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

            We had some trouble when we tried to get the vendor product working with the open-source products; that didn't go well. We tried HornetQ, maybe ActiveMQ. (It was eight years ago.) We liked it better than the embedded WebSphere MQ one; better than the one inside the app server.

            The vendor had a dependency that their product worked better with IBM MQ. Also, we have an extensive relationship with IBM, so that made the decision straightforward. If you're having trouble with the alternatives, just go with the existing vendor.

            How was the initial setup?

            Initial setup was complex because of what we were trying to do, as far as the distribution of a number of clones. With the IBM team, there was more internal drama and relationships – more personal problems – than there were technology problems.

            Which other solutions did I evaluate?

            We considered other solutions. It was, "Do we really have to?" with this vendor, or could we look at other things? So, we tried other things, and then came back full circle. We picked MQ because we struggled with the other ones. There's a lot of money on the table, so we actually looked at it, we did try it.

            Reliability is the most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with.

            What other advice do I have?

            Look at which features you really need.

            It works fine. It does what it's supposed to do. As far as being the best product in the universe, it's a plumbing product; it doesn't have a huge range of functionality; it has a very specific functionality. But it's reliable, so it's a good product.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523164 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Unix Admin at Desjardins
            Vendor
            We use it to communicate with the IBM SIS service. I would like a dashboard for working with queues.

            Valuable Features:

            The most valuable features are messaging between applications; sending messages. We use it a lot to communicate with the IBM SIS service.

            Improvements to My Organization:

            Actually, we didn't have a choice. If we wanted to speak with IBM SIS, it was the way to do it, so we had no choice there. We had to do it.

            There are some part of the business side that couldn't be done without it. It's an integral part.

            Room for Improvement:

            It would be nice to actually have something like a dashboard. I've been to a presentation about the PowerHA. They now have something like a dashboard, where you can see the health of your nodes and stuff. It would be great to have a dashboard like this. I think there is MQ Explorer, which does that, but I haven’t found it. I would like to use it more to work with the queues, and less to see the health of the environment.

            It’s reliable and it's quite all right to work with, but I would like the tools to be easier to work with on a day-to-day basis. For instance, the logs and stuff. For now, we just use the command line when we go in the log directory for each queue manager. It's not very, very easy to operate.

            Stability Issues:

            Stability is good. It's okay.

            Scalability Issues:

            Scalability is okay but it can get a little complicated. The application should really be aware of the way it works. We had quite a few issues where the app wasn’t able to talk to many queues. We didn't know that much about MQ; the dev team didn't know a lot about MQ, we did not know a lot about how to code for MQ. It was kind of difficult conversation there.

            Other Advice:

            I strongly suggest taking good training first, so you will really know the product and know how to implement it. Then, everything should be fine.

            Stability and support are the most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523170 - PeerSpot reviewer
            Security And Audit Analyst at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
            Real User
            It allows us to set up the security to determine what it gets to do on the mainframe and what it does not get to do.

            What is most valuable?

            For me, the most important features are its interfaces with RACF and how we can set up the security to allow and disallow who can get to it, who can use it; and then what MQ gets to do on the mainframe and what it does not get to do, basically.

            How has it helped my organization?

            Our organization uses it a lot to interface applications that are outside the mainframe with applications on the mainframe, or to CICS, items like that.

            It helps meet that threshold between what do the application people want to do – because they want to do everything now on GUIs and outside applications – and be able to have the security of the data living on the mainframe and how they get to it. It's the go-between between those two worlds.

            There are probably dozens of ways we are using MQ to better connect across cloud, mobile, and devices, but it's mostly the fact that they are setting up stuff and then they use the MQ as the go-between between the distributed world and the mainframe. That's mostly what it's being used for.

            What needs improvement?

            Sometimes the applications people don't really understand MQ. For example, we had somebody set up a call through MQ and they ended up making dozens and dozens of calls when they only really only needed to do one. They don't understand how MQ really works, and how it pulls the data and then distributes it back to them, etc.

            I think the application people understand that MQ can do it, but they don't really understand the mechanics behind it. They need to be better educated; how to use MQ, get the data that they need, and not cause conflicts.

            At the level of the application development people, there needs to be more communication, more information that they have so they understand, because, in essence, what you're using MQ to do is to go to the mainframe and get things. They're so used to their Windows environment, and they don't really understand how MQ grabs that data, and what the mechanics are behind the scenes. And I think that the applications people need to better understand it. Or else something put into MQ so that it is more obvious to them. They don't know what to ask for. They just know, "We're going to go against this data" and they don't know the difference between the different types of security they can set up. The different access and the different classes. We use different classes in RACF; they have no clue what a class is.

            There either needs to be better education on there, and or some tools built into MQ that helps them know what to ask for.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            I have a very high impression of the stability of MQ; we haven't had any problems with it. MQ has been very stable. I think we've had it go down once since I've been here, but it was due to something somebody screwed up somewhere else, not MQ's fault.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            So far, we haven't had any scalability problems either, but we're only about a year and a half into this.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I have not had to use technical support. I've had to use IBM technical support because of some issues, but I never had to talk to the MQ people. We have an MQ rep on site and he handles that stuff.

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

            I was involved in the decision process of how we were going to use RACF, and what they were going to set up to do their calls, but they decided they were going to use MQ. I was actually called in as a RACF specialist to help get that interface going.

            What other advice do I have?

            Before you implement it into RACF, really investigate the classes and how you're going to set those up, and make sure it's clear with the application development folks. Especially if you're trying to test QA and production separately, it's really important how those classes are set up, and how you set up the instructions for those guys.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are stability, technical support, obviously the more customers they have in a similar type of field; that's probably what's most important to us, generally.

            So far, we've had good luck with it. It seems to be working and it seems to be very stable.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user
            it_user523140 - PeerSpot reviewer
            IT Architect at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
            Vendor
            It's a core part of a middleware platform, integrating with our CRM billing application and our online transaction application.

            What is most valuable?

            It's one of our core parts of a middleware platform for integrating our CRM billing application and our online transaction application as well. That's the key usage for day-to-day activities.

            How has it helped my organization?

            Integration is a key benefit; it integrates easily. Management is easy. Queue management is one of the key features of it; how easy it is to get set up, get started, get running, look at your queues, look at your workloads, etc., and see what's going on.

            We’re not using MQ to better connect across cloud, mobile and devices, or part of the internet of things. It's something that we're looking at for IoNT. We're looking at doing mobile parking, our parking meters. It's something that we're looking at, but we're just doing the road mapping. We haven't deployed that yet.

            Currently, it's our connection between our web front end and our back end billing, but that's the next step.

            What needs improvement?

            Everything that we need so far works, so I think I'd have to look at the road map, what we planned for internet of things and see if it meets that, which it should. At that point, we'll have a better understanding of what we need going forward.

            My support guys, because they use it on a day-to-day basis, might want to see improvements from a management perspective, the management interface. That's one of the complaints I've heard: modernize to a more mobile platform. It's not modern enough for what they wanted to do with it, from what I've heard. That's one area I would say improvement could be done, but again, that might be a small component. Beyond that, nothing.

            The main reasons why I haven’t rated it higher is the management interface, which has been a topic of discussion among some of the users, and some issues we’ve had with MQ for z/OS; that's probably because we were on an older version. I haven't looked at the newer version. Those are the two main reasons.

            As far as the price point, I don't deal with that; that's somebody else's problem. From a deployment perspective, I didn't have an issue. It's a set up and go for me, from an architect's perspective. These are the requirements, these are the design, you go.

            What do I think about the stability of the solution?

            Stability is pretty good. We haven't had issues from a stability perspective. It seemed to always be running. Everyone seems to say, "Hey, it's an MQ issue." Once you look at it, though, the bottleneck is always somewhere else.

            What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

            Scalability is great as well. You can create your queue managers or you can add a node if you need to and just grow your platform.

            How are customer service and technical support?

            I personally haven't used technical support, so I can’t comment on that. Once it's deployed, the support team manages everything into it.

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

            I was not involved in the decision to invest in MQ.

            How was the initial setup?

            I was in the initial setup; I was involved in the design of the environment for MQ and the rollout of that platform.

            It was midway between straightforward and being complex. Our environment is quite complex. We have to integrate the different systems; we have MQ on z/OS, we have MQ distributed. It's right across the platform. The setup of MQ was not complex, but the integration with our environment had some complexity. Overall, with the MQ platform, I don’t think we could have done it any easier.

            What other advice do I have?

            It's a great tool. It's a great integration middleware tool. Once you have your requirements set, MQ should meet it, but review: Make sure that you understand what you need, what you're setting up, and how you're going to deploy it.

            The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is how easy it is to get the information from that vendor. Usually, when we get a project, it needs to be deployed yesterday; very tight timelines. If a vendor can come to the forefront, come with all the information, show that their product will meet our needs and it's above any other product on the market, or even on par, but you get a little bit of extra service or support, that's what we look for.

            Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
            PeerSpot user