We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Microsoft .NET Framework based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The solution has good integration."
"The solution is easy to use if the user is a developer or some technical person."
"Microsoft .NET Framework continually innovates, particularly in Visual Studio, which focuses on improving languages, debugging, and .NET functionality."
"The product has a good interface and easy-to-use programming language."
"It is a stable solution."
"The technology is very scalable and accessible to use."
"When we talk about .NET development, we use Visual Studio IDE to create these things. In recent years, there have been a lot of improvements in Visual Studio 2022. It would be a daunting task to list all of the features that have benefited us, as it would require a lot of time and effort. However, there are definitely many improvements year after year in .NET development."
"Microsoft .NET Framework reduces the cost of entry and enables the development of applications with mature and enterprise features, thereby lowering the entry barriers."
"Microsoft .NET Framework’s most valuable features are web application development, RESTful services development, security, performance, and less memory footprint."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The product could have a better framework for application development."
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"The runtime environment for ASP.NET needs improvement to make it more universal."
".NET Is still heavy or dependant on other Microsoft libraries and frameworks."
"Lacking in auto-scaling."
"It is of great concern to us that the solution is not very powerful on cross platform, at it impedes the ability to build and scale with it."
"I would want the product to be integrated with the different AI tools in the future since it is one of the areas where the product has certain shortcomings."
"Better integration with other tools to make the operation faster would be an improvement."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Windows Process Activation Services. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Microsoft .NET Framework report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.