We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, IBM, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software."The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
"Secure, safe, and very fast."
"It is very robust and very scalable."
"The initial setup is easy."
"I appreciate the level of control we have over queue managers, queues, and the messaging itself. That provides good security. So, the control and scalability of messaging are important to me."
"It also has a backup queue concept and topics, features that I have not seen anywhere else. I like these features very much."
"Offers good performance as well as scalability and stability."
"IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."
"Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues."
"I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially."
"It could always be more stable and secure."
"IBM MQ could streamline its complexity to be more like Kafka without the channel complexities of clusters, making it more straightforward."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"It's hard to put in a nutshell, but it's sort of developed as more of an on-premise solution. It hasn't moved much away from that."
"I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution."
"In terms of volume, it is not able to handle a huge volume. We also have limitations of queues related to IBM MQ. We often need to handle a very big volume, but currently we do have limitations. If those kinds of limitations could be relaxed, it would help us to work better."
"JBoss could add more automation."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is ranked 12th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is rated 8.0. 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 JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS writes "It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is most compared with Apache Kafka.
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.
