We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and TIBCO Rendezvous based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Activity Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Assists with our apps and has great message processing."
"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API."
"Data integrity, reliability and security are valuable features that IBM MQ possesses."
"The most valuable feature is the interaction within the system."
"Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
"The product helps us monitor messages with other queues, view duplicated messages and control undelivered messages."
"The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
"Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications."
"TIBCO Rendezvous has a strategy to communicate in the network between the DMO of the product. They provide strategy through secure communication. They use the UDP protocol, but It's not a resilient protocol. They put another protocol to create a type of guarantee. It has a high level of communication between the DMO. This is the best capability the solution has."
"There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily."
"IBM MQ is not very user-friendly."
"We are looking at the latest version, and we hope that resilience, high availability, and monitoring will be improved. It can have some more improvements in the heterogeneous messaging feature. The current solution is on-premises, so good integration with public cloud messaging solutions would be useful."
"More documentation would be good because some features are not deeply implemented."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like for there to be easier monitoring. The UI should be easier for non-technical users to set up appliances and servers."
"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"
"It could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign."
"TIBCO Rendezvous is currently restricted in a cloud environment and it would be more useful in a hybrid cloud setup. It does not work correctly in a cloud environment alone. This is something they can improve in the future."
Earn 20 points
IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 158 reviews while TIBCO Rendezvous is ranked 4th in Business Activity Monitoring. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while TIBCO Rendezvous is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TIBCO Rendezvous writes "Good communication, stable, and responsive support". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas TIBCO Rendezvous is most compared with TIBCO FTL and PubSub+ Event Broker. See our IBM MQ vs. TIBCO Rendezvous report.
See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors and best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Activity Monitoring 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.