We performed a comparison between Anypoint 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."Good interface, simple to use and stable."
"The solution is scalable, and its performance is quite good."
"Initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment is a cakewalk."
"We use simple queues and exchanges to route messages to multiple queues. The publish/subscribe model is also helpful."
"The most valuable feature of Anypoint MQ is it comes with MuleSoft so we don't have to maintain separate components."
"Messaging and queueing solution that has good stability and scalability. It can be used for a variety of messaging types."
"It's easy to use and comes as a bundle package with the Anypoint Platform, removing the need for any complex setup."
"The solution is very scalable with solid performance and the capability of extending it using any custom Java in case you don't have anything out of the box. MDP is strong. It is good compared to other products regarding its capabilities in managing or orchestrating the issue load."
"The product helps us monitor messages with other queues, view duplicated messages and control undelivered messages."
"Data integrity, reliability and security are valuable features that IBM MQ possesses."
"The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is transaction processing."
"The solution is very easy to work with."
"It improves reliability and guarantees that messages are not lost."
"The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Reliable messaging and throughput are the most valuable."
"When we are integrating with other applications, readily available connectors make it easy. However, when it comes to external applications, connectivity isn't as straightforward."
"It's extremely expensive to change things in Anypoint MQ. There's also this issue of slow output of messages, and that needs to be improved."
"Anypoint MQ's capabilities are mainly used for messaging purposes, but it doesn't have typical use cases that extend as far as other Message Queue software."
"Information on monitoring could be improved."
"The solution is very costly. The solution should provide a package with fewer capabilities at a lower price for specific companies that don’t have a big IT budget. Not every customer requires all the capabilities of the software. It will be a good fit in the market, and they will easily sell it more."
"The solution's licensing model is expensive and could be improved."
"There are so many solutions like this, but this is not as mature as those products. The other MQ products have the capability of reprocessing and maintaining the persistence of the data. They can handle large volumes and large messages, but Anypoint MQ doesn't have those capabilities."
"Anypoint MQ could improve the user interface."
"The issue is that they're using a very old clustering model."
"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."
"Scaling is difficult with IBM MQ."
"We would like to see the IBM technical support team extend their hand to providing support for other cloud vendors like Azure, Google Cloud, and AWS"
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"While there is support for API, it's not like the modern API capabilities."
"It should support a wider range of protocols, not just a few specific ones. Many other products have broader protocol support, and IBM MQ is lagging in that area."
"The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory."
Anypoint MQ is ranked 7th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 10 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. Anypoint MQ is rated 7.0, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Anypoint MQ writes "Useful for asynchronous messaging, but it lacks features, and the storage is limited". 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". Anypoint MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, Amazon SQS, VMware Tanzu Data Services and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and TIBCO Enterprise Message Service. See our Anypoint 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.
