We performed a comparison between Amazon MQ and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations."
"I like the MQ's simplicity and rock-solid stability. I've never experienced a failure in two decades caused by the product itself. It has only failed due to human error."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"The message queue and the integration with any development platform/language, i.e., NET and Java, are the most valuable features."
"It also has a backup queue concept and topics, features that I have not seen anywhere else. I like these features very much."
"A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."
"It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features."
"The usability of the solution is very good."
"The reliability of the queuing is the most valuable feature."
"Amazon MQ is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises. It's open-source software, which means it's cheaper than its competitors."
"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"It could always be more stable and secure."
"The licensing fees should be more cost-effective so that we can better pitch the product to our clients. With the pricing as it is, they tend to move away from IBM products."
"They have provided a Liberty Profile in the Web Console for administration, and that could be further enhanced. It is not fit for use by an enterprise. They have to get rid of their WebSphere process and develop a front-end on Node.js or the like."
"It's hard to put in a nutshell, but it's sort of developed as more of an on-premise solution. It hasn't moved much away from that."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"I would like the ability to connect with some of the more recent offerings, such as API Connect; being able to publish our MQ endpoints, the queues, the messaging infrastructure as IT assets."
"Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market."
Amazon MQ is ranked 9th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. Amazon MQ is rated 8.4, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon MQ writes "Provides you with a URL where you can either send or retrieve messages". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". Amazon MQ is most compared with Amazon SQS, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and EMQX, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and Software AG Universal Messaging. See our Amazon MQ vs. IBM MQ report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software 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.
