We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Microsoft .NET Framework 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."The solution has good integration."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The tool offers a lot of support, and there is a lot of knowledge material available, along with a lot of community groups."
"A great solution for creating program solutions in a framework for Microsoft Windows quickly and easily."
"The web development and Microsoft Windows service development capabilities are among the most valuable features offered by the Microsoft .NET Framework. This language platform is highly user-friendly, with plenty of online examples and information available, as well as a robust development environment."
"I like that ASP.NET is used for the framework and the core web services."
"The Windows Communication Foundation is the biggest advantage we get from the .NET Framework."
"The product has a good interface and easy-to-use programming language."
"The most valuable thing about Microsoft .NET Framework is that it is an enterprise-grade language and platform."
"Microsoft Platform is the only viable solution when I wish to do something that is not supposed to be cross-platform."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"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."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"Better integration with other tools to make the operation faster would be an improvement."
"It would be nice if the framework were able to work with additional environments and systems like Linux."
"One thing that could be improved is the tooling and IDE for .NET in non-Windows environments like Mac."
"The .NET open source community could be larger."
"I would like to see more pre-built features in the MVC framework because as it is now, it's very open and you have to develop your own controls in order to use it."
"The solution has difficulty integrating with other products. There are no such difficulties if you have the same platform, hardware, and operating system."
"If AI could be incorporated in Microsoft .NET Framework it would be helpful."
"They should try to improve their Blazor WebAssembly."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. 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 Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Windows Process Activation Services. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Microsoft .NET Framework 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.