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."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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"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."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"A great solution for creating program solutions in a framework for Microsoft Windows quickly and easily."
"Microsoft .NET Framework continually innovates, particularly in Visual Studio, which focuses on improving languages, debugging, and .NET functionality."
"The most valuable features for us are web frameworks like MVC, Web API, and WCS."
"The new .NET Core has those middlewares, which are awesome from a security standpoint. With the old Framework or the newer Framework, middleware is basically an event pipeline. You configure and register it, and it handles things centrally. A simple example is logging. With the old Framework, you needed to try/catch blocks everywhere. Here, you configure the logging handler once, and it captures exceptions across the application. I really like the middleware pattern."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Microsoft .NET Framework reduces the cost of entry and enables the development of applications with mature and enterprise features, thereby lowering the entry barriers."
"The solution's technical support is very good...The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Ease of use, the richness of the libraries and basically very good development tools."
"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."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"They should try to improve their Blazor WebAssembly."
"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."
"The product could have a better framework for application development."
"Better integration with other tools to make the operation faster would be an improvement."
"I would like more web integration."
"The .NET open source community could be larger."
"They could enhance support for Python within Visual Studio, as integrating Microsoft products with other frameworks can present a steep learning curve."
"If Microsoft would provide a monthly subscription at a cost that a developer can afford then it would be really helpful."
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.