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 solution has good integration."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Basically, .NET is simply is the easiest programming language to use, based on my experience."
"Ease of use, the richness of the libraries and basically very good development tools."
"Microsoft Platform is the only viable solution when I wish to do something that is not supposed to be cross-platform."
"The .NET Framework simplified operations dealing with the allocation and deallocation of memory spaces and the additional processing resources."
"In-built refactoring and .Net profilers are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The .NET framework is a mature platform that is very helpful and saves time during the software development process."
"The .NET Framework is easier to use because it provides a wide range of libraries."
"The most valuable features for us are web frameworks like MVC, Web API, and WCS."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"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 user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"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."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"They should try to improve their Blazor WebAssembly."
"The pricing is a bit expensive."
"The runtime environment for ASP.NET needs improvement to make it more universal."
"The initial setup is complex."
"This solution should include Power BI so that we don't have to use any third-party tools."
"If Microsoft would provide a monthly subscription at a cost that a developer can afford then it would be really helpful."
"I would like to see more pre-built features in the MVC framework because as it is now, it's very open and you have to develop your own controls in order to use it."
"I would like more web integration."
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.