If customers using open-source integration or any springboard integrations need JMS, they must carefully evaluate the product. I would recommend Anypoint MQ only for MuleSoft customers. I won't recommend the solution to customers using a different integration platform because there's a cost associated with the product. Overall, I rate Anypoint MQ an eight out of ten.
Anypoint MQ has stability issues. I have experienced data loss and inconsistent behaviour. The data isn't always pushed to the SQL database. When I put a message in the SQL queue, the data should be static, but it's not. Additionally, clicking a message in Anypoint MQ can sometimes trigger database loss. This instability becomes particularly noticeable when starting or restarting the server. Overall, I rate the solution a four out of ten.
Integration Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
2022-09-27T21:29:32Z
Sep 27, 2022
I can recommend this solution to MuleSoft users. Those are not individual users who only want a messaging system. This solution comes packaged with MuleSoft. I rate Anypoint MQ a seven out of ten.
MDG SAP Global Data Architect at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2022-04-05T17:23:50Z
Apr 5, 2022
I thought we had a problem with our queuing software, and it turned out that it's not the software itself, it's the third party. We're passing the messages on to the third party, and they can only receive it at a certain rate, so we had to drop the Anypoint MQ software down, but it's not actually the MQ software, rather it's the actual third party application that was causing the problem. As I'm working on the SAP side, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to discuss about the features I like most about the solution. My advice to others looking into implementing the solution is to first look at what you're trying to achieve, because you've got Anypoint MQ as your queueing software, and then you've got the Apache Kafka software as well, and they do different things. I didn't realize this when I started looking, because I was looking at Kafka thinking that would be the answer to our problem, but it wasn't, because it looks great if you want instantaneous messaging and loads of bandwidth, but you need to do the interpretation of messages. I'd say, look at what you want it for, because Anypoint MQ seems to be as good as the other options, to be fair. I'd also tell them about the problem I've had with it, and that's not just going to be a problem with Anypoint MQ alone, because I think other systems will have the same problem, e.g. the queuing problem. I'll tell others to really, really look at the application. Anypoint MQ seems to be a standard application, and it's acceptable. My overall impression of Anypoint MQ in terms of rating it, is seven out of ten, but that's just based on my feeling. I don't have any quantifiable reasons on why I'm giving it that score.
It is a good product, but for the reasons previously mentioned, there are a lot of opportunities to improve this particular piece of software. I would rate Anypoint MQ a seven out of ten.
Senior Integration Consultant at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Consultant
2021-12-08T00:12:00Z
Dec 8, 2021
I would rate this solution 6 out of 10. We thought that this was a pure demo product. We moved from IBM to MuleSoft thinking that it would work like IBM, but that's not what happened. My advice is to try to evaluate the product beforehand and see whether it fits your needs and requirements. Check if it covers all of your use cases. Otherwise, it won't work. There are a lot of MQ products on the market, but this is suitable for small scale customers and not for large scale. We haven't switched solutions yet, but the plan is to switch because of this product's limitations. It doesn't cover all the use cases.
Director and Solution Architect at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2020-04-30T10:58:57Z
Apr 30, 2020
I would suggest that anybody looking for a similar solution start with proof of concept. It's all about your company's needs, the workload you have, and what you're handling. A decision on a particular solution really comes down to that. I would rate this product an eight out of 10.
Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.
If customers using open-source integration or any springboard integrations need JMS, they must carefully evaluate the product. I would recommend Anypoint MQ only for MuleSoft customers. I won't recommend the solution to customers using a different integration platform because there's a cost associated with the product. Overall, I rate Anypoint MQ an eight out of ten.
Anypoint MQ has stability issues. I have experienced data loss and inconsistent behaviour. The data isn't always pushed to the SQL database. When I put a message in the SQL queue, the data should be static, but it's not. Additionally, clicking a message in Anypoint MQ can sometimes trigger database loss. This instability becomes particularly noticeable when starting or restarting the server. Overall, I rate the solution a four out of ten.
I recommend the product for an enterprise level. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
I can recommend this solution to MuleSoft users. Those are not individual users who only want a messaging system. This solution comes packaged with MuleSoft. I rate Anypoint MQ a seven out of ten.
I thought we had a problem with our queuing software, and it turned out that it's not the software itself, it's the third party. We're passing the messages on to the third party, and they can only receive it at a certain rate, so we had to drop the Anypoint MQ software down, but it's not actually the MQ software, rather it's the actual third party application that was causing the problem. As I'm working on the SAP side, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to discuss about the features I like most about the solution. My advice to others looking into implementing the solution is to first look at what you're trying to achieve, because you've got Anypoint MQ as your queueing software, and then you've got the Apache Kafka software as well, and they do different things. I didn't realize this when I started looking, because I was looking at Kafka thinking that would be the answer to our problem, but it wasn't, because it looks great if you want instantaneous messaging and loads of bandwidth, but you need to do the interpretation of messages. I'd say, look at what you want it for, because Anypoint MQ seems to be as good as the other options, to be fair. I'd also tell them about the problem I've had with it, and that's not just going to be a problem with Anypoint MQ alone, because I think other systems will have the same problem, e.g. the queuing problem. I'll tell others to really, really look at the application. Anypoint MQ seems to be a standard application, and it's acceptable. My overall impression of Anypoint MQ in terms of rating it, is seven out of ten, but that's just based on my feeling. I don't have any quantifiable reasons on why I'm giving it that score.
It is a good product, but for the reasons previously mentioned, there are a lot of opportunities to improve this particular piece of software. I would rate Anypoint MQ a seven out of ten.
I would rate this solution 6 out of 10. We thought that this was a pure demo product. We moved from IBM to MuleSoft thinking that it would work like IBM, but that's not what happened. My advice is to try to evaluate the product beforehand and see whether it fits your needs and requirements. Check if it covers all of your use cases. Otherwise, it won't work. There are a lot of MQ products on the market, but this is suitable for small scale customers and not for large scale. We haven't switched solutions yet, but the plan is to switch because of this product's limitations. It doesn't cover all the use cases.
I would suggest that anybody looking for a similar solution start with proof of concept. It's all about your company's needs, the workload you have, and what you're handling. A decision on a particular solution really comes down to that. I would rate this product an eight out of 10.