We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and IIS 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."It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"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."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The solution has good integration."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The solution is easy to use."
"IIS is stable."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The solution is the easiest way to publish applications which have been designed by older development tools."
"Microsoft's technical support has always been very good."
"The product is easy to configure."
"We use the solution for our customer's web applications."
"It is an easy-to-use and secure program."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The solution's scalability needs improvement."
"The solution should improve the cluster environment and load balancing."
"Compared to Linux, the solution’s Windows patching is slower. I would like to improve it."
"IIS could improve by Microsoft Windows improving the update services. We would like to be able to update all systems that are connected. The WSA service has to be in good order to accomplish this."
"Scalability issues and security concerns need attention from Microsoft."
"It would be beneficial if you could automate security certificate monitoring with IIS."
"The platform's stability could be better."
"Having no support for other than a Microsoft environment and programming languages limits the usage of IIS in many cases."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while IIS is ranked 1st in Application Infrastructure with 53 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while IIS is rated 8.0. 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 IIS writes " A simple and easy-to-use solution but not recommended for public apps". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas IIS is most compared with NGINX Plus, Apache Web Server, Oracle WebLogic Server and Tomcat. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. IIS 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.
