We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Oracle Service Bus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"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."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"This product is not complicated and very easy to learn."
"The communication between applications is already defined, which means that you don't have to redefine your service infrastructure at the lower level."
"Overall it is a pretty good solution."
"The routing and aggregation are the most valuable features. It's split and join."
"It is stable."
"It was very good at supporting high transactions, up to 300 transactions per second."
"What I like most about Oracle Service Bus is that you can use it for many integrations. For example, you can use it for on-premises to on-premises integrations, on-premises to cloud integrations, and cloud to on-premises integrations."
"I am a part of the software developing team and I mainly use this solution for the integrating applications."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"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."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"This solution would benefit from having more cloud-based adapters."
"It's very complex and hard to learn. There's a steep learning curve."
"The pricing of the product could be better. It's a bit high."
"If they can containerize this, that would be nice. If they can provide docker images and offer support for those containers, that would be great."
"There are times when I select components in composite and they do not appear, and I cannot figure out why."
"The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production."
"It would be ideal if they could optimize it a bit."
"An area for improvement in Oracle Service Bus is the roadmap for its product launch. Currently, it's unclear, so Oracle should develop a roadmap for version 12c, so people can see what's coming out of that version of Oracle Service Bus. Cloud hosting is an additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Oracle Service Bus."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Oracle Service Bus is ranked 5th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 25 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Oracle Service Bus is rated 7.8. 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 Oracle Service Bus writes "Enables us to do a lot of aggregation and routing, but API response can be a problem if the payload is heavy". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Oracle Service Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Red Hat Fuse and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Oracle Service Bus report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.
