We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and WebLogic 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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"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."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The solution is very scalable. It's easy to add processes even if you are new to the solution."
"The transaction handling of WebLogic and the way it is designed is excellent."
"What I've been seeing as the most valuable characteristics of WebLogic Suite include robustness and scalability. It's a really good solution, and I'm not saying this because my company is a partner of WebLogic Suite. I also like that with the newer versions of the solution, you can deploy WebLogic Suite faster. Oracle also provides excellent technical support."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides one place where you can control all of the services."
"A valuable feature is its integration with Oracle Database."
"The solution is useful for centralizing data."
"The most valuable feature of WebLogic is it has excellent performance and stability compared to the previous solution we used."
"It easily connects to other Oracle products and services."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"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."
"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."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"I noticed a few areas for improvement in WebLogic Suite. If you use the pure play higher-availability features, then yes, it can be switched over to the other system from the high-availability point of view, but that comes with a certain price. If you prefer simpler high-availability, that requires manual intervention. I'd also recommend a tuning feature in WebLogic Suite because it's not self-tuning, and this means you need thorough expertise to do the tuning and leverage the best benefit out of it. If Oracle makes WebLogic Suite automated or self-driven, then it becomes a wonderful product, similar to what Oracle did for the Autonomous Database which is self-driven or has an autonomous operating system. If automation is added in the next release of the solution, combined with more affordable pricing, though as a technical person, I know how much goes into having automation as a feature, and it could be difficult to lower the price, but if Oracle can do it, then that would make WebLogic Suite better."
"The licensing for the solution is pretty expensive. It may be the most expensive solution, if you were to compare it to the competition."
"Support could be better. The expertise when we have some Oracle WebLogic issues and challenges is not there. The issues are not being addressed in time. This really needs to be improved going forward."
"The restart capability needs to be improved because it takes us 15 minutes to restart any application."
"Lacking a solution for smaller applications."
"I would like to see the licensing policy simplified."
"There are sometimes issues with clusters."
"This solution would benefit from the inclusion of a ripple start function for clusters."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while WebLogic Suite is ranked 11th in Application Infrastructure with 31 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while WebLogic Suite is rated 8.2. 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 WebLogic Suite writes "Simple setup, reliable, and performs well". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas WebLogic Suite is most compared with Oracle SOA Suite, Microsoft .NET Framework, Oracle WebCenter, Apache Web Server and NGINX Plus. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. WebLogic 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.
