We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat AMQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features."
"Technical support is quite helpful."
"Secure, safe, and very fast."
"We have implemented business to business transactions over MQ messaging. The guaranteed and once only delivery ensures business integrity."
"The product helps us monitor messages with other queues, view duplicated messages and control undelivered messages."
"I like the MQ's simplicity and rock-solid stability. I've never experienced a failure in two decades caused by the product itself. It has only failed due to human error."
"Encryption and the fact that we have not had any data loss issues so far have been very valuable features. IBM MQ is well encrypted so that we are well within our compliance and regulatory requirements, so that is a plus point as well."
"IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"This product is well adopted on the OpenShift platform. For organizations like ours that use OpenShift for many of our products, this is a good feature."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day."
"It would be great if the dashboard had additional features like a board design."
"The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset."
"I can't say pricing is good."
"With IBM products, there's less marketing. If they do more demos and more seminars on their products, it will be very useful. On a given day. I get seminar invites for many vendors and products, but for IBM, I may get an invite once or twice a year."
"It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products."
"I have used the support from IBM MQ. There is some room for improvement."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"They probably need to virtualize the MQ flow and allow us to design the MQ flow using the UI. It would also help to migrate to the cloud easily and implement AWS Lambda functions with minimum coding. If you have to code, then just with NodeJS or Java."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
"There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 7 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat AMQ 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 Red Hat AMQ writes "A stable, open-source technology, with a convenient deployment". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Amazon SQS and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, IBM Event Streams and Amazon MQ. See our IBM MQ vs. Red Hat AMQ 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.