We performed a comparison between IBM Event Streams 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."I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"The stability has been good."
"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."
"IBM MQ's flexibility has sped up our active communication."
"The methodology and the way in which the platform has been produced as a standard is most valuable. There are so many different versions of it now, but the actual basic functionality and the simplicity of it have made it far easier to be implemented in so many different instances. When I worked with the OS/2 or PS/2 machine environment, the messaging mechanisms were based upon IBM MQ. It is so versatile, which is the main reason that I'm a fan of it."
"There are a lot of extensible options for security, i.e., various things you can do. It's pretty easy to navigate."
"It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters."
"IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team."
"There is no dependency on the end party service's run status."
"The first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage."
"A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."
"It would be helpful if they could help us explain why they, as in, the customers, should use the product and the overall benefits."
"The product's interface needs improvement."
"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
"If they could have some front-end monitoring tool that could be easily available for the team to use, that could be great."
"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."
"Should have more integration in the monitoring tools."
"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."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"I'm not sure that current version has event-driven mechanism requests that people go for. I would like the latest version to come with both type of event mechanisms: an email server and a POP server. If that is not there, then that would be a great addition."
"The pricing needs improvement."
IBM Event Streams is ranked 11th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. IBM Event Streams is rated 8.4, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Event Streams writes "Easy to use, stable, has a good interface, and the security is good". 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". IBM Event Streams is most compared with Apache Kafka and Red Hat AMQ, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services and Red Hat AMQ. See our IBM Event Streams 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.
