We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Microsoft .NET Framework 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."The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The solution has good integration."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"When it comes to the user interface, the context is better than other tools because it is easier to use."
"It is a stable solution."
"Firstly, I appreciate the decision to use Microsoft .NET Framework. I find it to be an excellent language, with a history rooted in providing an alternative to Java, albeit with initial challenges. It is gaining popularity and may be voted the most desirable programming language. What I particularly like about .NET is its language efficiency. While C# is the primary language, the platform also supports others, catering to those inclined towards functional programming. Although I started with Shell, I'm still grasping the concept of functional programming. Despite initial reservations about object-oriented programming, I acknowledge its advantages. .NET is a safer option, and despite criticisms, it has evolved over the years. One notable aspect is .NET's transition to an open platform in recent years, distancing itself from being exclusive to Microsoft engineers. I appreciate the versatility of .NET, enabling code production for a wide range of platforms, presenting a strong competition to Java. It allows targeting practically any physical platform, showcasing its flexibility. These qualities contribute to my positive view of .NET, totaling thirteen aspects that I find appealing."
"Microsoft .NET Framework continually innovates, particularly in Visual Studio, which focuses on improving languages, debugging, and .NET functionality."
"The .NET Framework is easier to use because it provides a wide range of libraries."
"Initial setup is straightforward. All the components are readily available."
"Pre-programmed functions for .NET Framework are widely available."
"In my opinion, the best thing about Microsoft .NET is the fully featured framework. It provides most of the things which a normal developer requires of any application out of the box."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Improvements are needed in .NET development, particularly in a backend scenario."
"I would like more web integration."
"You need to have the technical expertise to use this product."
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"This solution is best used with some training."
"I would like to see more pre-built features in the MVC framework because as it is now, it's very open and you have to develop your own controls in order to use it."
"The runtime environment for ASP.NET needs improvement to make it more universal."
"The integration capability of the product with AI is an area with certain shortcomings, where improvements are required."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. 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 Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Windows Process Activation Services. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Microsoft .NET Framework 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.