We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Oracle SOA Suite 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 has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The solution has good integration."
"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 documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"The Oracle SOA Suite has many useful features, and different organizations may place different emphases on the importance of each feature. Certain features are particularly important to the organization, such as the ability to access databases and transform messages, as well as the use of proxy services to secure web services with usernames and passwords. These features can be critical for enabling effective integration and data exchange between systems and applications."
"Valuable features include connectors and BAM."
"In Oracle SOA Suite some applications are not able to use REST, but it can support both SOAP and REST. You're able to integrate quite a lot of systems, which may not be able to in other solutions. You can also use XML and JSON. It is a standardizing type of tool. It doesn't matter whether I'm using JSON or XML, it can convert them."
"The product provides transparency in finances."
"Middleware jobs developing for EC, ERP, and shipping systems become easier."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the option to design, and the development can happen at the same time."
"Enables our Product Manager to post products to different outside EC platforms with only one interface and one process."
"The most valuable features for us are the APIs, which we commonly use, as well as the scheduling capabilities and file transfers."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"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 user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"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."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"SOA, OSB, SOA Cloud Service."
"Another area of improvement is performance. Because with multiple solutions connecting to the SOA platform, the performance of the SOA platform can be affected in time. So, that could be one area that could be improved with the SOA."
"It's also not developer-friendly."
"The technical support is good, we have premier support which costs extra."
"The deployment could be made easier by including add-ons like Hudson and Maven."
"The Maven integration in JDeveloper is very basic and might be enhanced to allow the proper use of Maven."
"An important area that can be improved is the product's data monitoring. When we use the solution for interfacing or end-to-end data monitoring, we want to know exactly where the data is going and exactly where it is failing, or where there is an issue."
"One area that could be better is the human task feature. It could be improved to provide more functionality and customization options because it has limited options available."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Oracle SOA Suite is ranked 8th in Application Infrastructure with 65 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Oracle SOA Suite 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 Oracle SOA Suite writes "Easy to setup, provides good support and scalable solution ". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Oracle SOA Suite is most compared with Mule ESB, WebLogic Suite, Apache Web Server, TIBCO ActiveMatrix and IBM BPM. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Oracle SOA Suite 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.
