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.
"I think the whole product is useful. Their database and all is very good, and the product is fine. The fact that it ensures message delivery is probably the most important thing. I also like that you're able to trace and track everything. If it doesn't arrive at the destination, it will go back to the queue, and no message will be lost."
"It is very robust and very scalable."
"Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7."
"It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem."
"We have found the MQ messaging topologies valuable."
"The solution is very stable."
"Reliability is the most valuable feature. MQ is used to support critical business applications."
"The usability of the solution is very good."
"Simple and straightforward admin portals: Made it easy for users and worked out excellently for our requirements"
"We have been able to set up a messaging system that facilitates data integration between the software modules that we sell."
"It can be configured to be a very fast message broker. I like the stability, the built-in admin tools and plugin architecture."
"It is easy to use. The addition of more queues and more services can be managed very easily."
"The most valuable feature is that it's really customizable."
"The solution has really cool features to use. Its management console is excellent. You can utilize plugins to view the performance of the whole service on one network."
"RabbitMQ will help to remove a lot of the complexities and create a loosely coupled codebase."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it is open source. The licensing costs are really low and they are transparent."
"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."
"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."
"The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory."
"The main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now."
"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."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
"the level of training as well as product marketing for this product are not that great. You rarely find a good training institute that provides training. Many of the architects in several organization are neither aware of the product nor interested in using it. IBM should provide good training on products like this."
"The product is pretty hard to configure."
"When you have complex tasks, RabbitMQ is hard to use."
"They should improve on the ability to scale your queues in a very simple and elegant way with the same power that they have would be great."
"There are some security concerns that have been raised with this product."
"The product has to improve the crisis management, especially in memory issues."
"The fact that a single queue can't be distributed across multiple instances/nodes is a major disadvantage."
"VMware RabbitMQ's configuration process could be easier to understand."
"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."
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 39 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, Amazon SQS and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas VMware RabbitMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, Anypoint MQ, 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.
