We compared IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
IBM MQ is praised for its reliability, scalability, security, and seamless integration capabilities, with positive feedback on customer service, setup expenses, and licensing. On the other hand, VMware RabbitMQ is commended for its message queueing abilities, integration, scalability, and support. Areas for enhancement in IBM MQ include improvements in certain aspects, while VMware RabbitMQ users seek better documentation, UI, stability, performance, error handling, message routing, and clustering support.
Features: IBM MQ is valued for its reliability, scalability, security, and ease of integration. Users appreciate its ability to handle high volumes of messages without loss or delay and its robust encryption protocols. It seamlessly connects with different applications and platforms. On the other hand, VMware RabbitMQ excels in message queueing capabilities, seamless integration, scalability, and community support.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for IBM MQ received positive remarks, with users finding it reasonable and cost-effective. The setup costs were considered manageable, allowing swift implementation. In comparison, users expressed satisfaction with the affordable setup cost of VMware RabbitMQ and its flexible licensing options., IBM MQ users have praised its efficiency, communication integration, and streamlined workflows. The product is reliable, scalable, and easy to use, resulting in cost savings and increased productivity. On the other hand, users of VMware RabbitMQ have reported increased efficiency, seamless integration with existing infrastructure, and reduced downtime. The platform is praised for its scalability, reliability, extensive documentation, and strong community support.
Room for Improvement: IBM MQ product has received user feedback regarding areas that require enhancement, whereas VMware RabbitMQ has received feedback on areas including documentation, user interface, stability, performance, error handling, message routing, and support for clustering and scaling.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for IBM MQ indicate that users mentioned different timeframes for establishing new tech solutions, with deployment taking three months and setup ranging from one week to one week. The reviews for VMware RabbitMQ also mention varying durations, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others mentioned a week for both. It is important to carefully evaluate the context in which these terms are used to determine if they refer to the same period or should be considered separately., IBM MQ's customer service is highly regarded for its promptness, effectiveness, and level of expertise. Users describe the support team as helpful, courteous, and professional. In comparison, VMware RabbitMQ's customer service is praised for its responsiveness, reliability, and efficient problem-solving abilities.
The summary above is based on 27 interviews we conducted recently with IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Technical support is quite helpful."
"The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
"The feature I find most effective for ensuring message delivery without loss is the backup threshold. This feature allows for automatic retries of transactional messages within a specified threshold."
"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API."
"It is stable, reliable, and scalable."
"This product has good security."
"We use VMware RabbitMQ to transfer information from one point to another."
"Companies can scale the solution, so long as they have server room."
"After creating a RabbitMQ service, they provide you with a sort of web management dashboard."
"The product's reliability is the most valuable feature."
"We have been able to set up a messaging system that facilitates data integration between the software modules that we sell."
"Reliability for the messages is key. RabbitMQ ensures your messages are safe. They are not deleted and stuff."
"The most valuable feature is asynchronous calls, which are easy to configure."
"The product's feature of data transaction works fast."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"IBM could revamp the interface. The API is huge, but some developers find it limiting because of the cost. They tend to wrap the API course into the JMS, which means they're missing out on some good features. They should work a little bit on the API exposure."
"It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions."
"IBM MQ is not very user-friendly."
"If they could have some front-end monitoring tool that could be easily available for the team to use, that could be great."
"It should support a wider range of protocols, not just a few specific ones. Many other products have broader protocol support, and IBM MQ is lagging in that area."
"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."
"I was struggling with installing a few things. It would be good if was somewhat similar to RedHat. There should be more documentation regarding installation troubleshooting."
"The next release should include some of the flexibility and features that Kafka offers."
"There are some security concerns that have been raised with this product."
"If you're outside IP address range, the clustering no longer has all the features which is problematic."
"RabbitMQ is clearly better supported on Linux than it is on Windows. There are idiosyncrasies in the Windows version that are not there on Linux."
"VMware RabbitMQ's configuration process could be easier to understand."
"Their implementation is quite tricky. It's not that easy to implement RabbitMQ as a cluster."
"The user interface could be improved."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while VMware RabbitMQ is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 41 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while VMware RabbitMQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware RabbitMQ writes "Reliable queueing functionality and versatile tool that can be used with any programming languages ". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, Red Hat AMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Amazon SQS, whereas VMware RabbitMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, Anypoint MQ, ActiveMQ, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker. See our IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software 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.