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."
"We use simple queues and exchanges to route messages to multiple queues. The publish/subscribe model is also helpful."
"Initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment is a cakewalk."
"It's easy to use and comes as a bundle package with the Anypoint Platform, removing the need for any complex setup."
"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."
"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."
"Combined with IBM MQ, this product is our primary data store."
"Reliable integration between MQ servers is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is easy to understand and even medium developers can easily start using it."
"The feature I find most effective for ensuring message delivery without loss is the backup threshold. This feature allows for automatic retries of transactional messages within a specified threshold."
"Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."
"This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"All the features are valuable."
"The solution's licensing model is expensive and could be improved."
"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."
"The product does not provide a priority level for the message."
"The customer service is not good enough"
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products."
"It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."
"More documentation would be good because some features are not deeply implemented."
"Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"the level of training as well as product marketing for this product are not that great. You rarely find a good training institute that provides training. Many of the architects in several organization are neither aware of the product nor interested in using it. IBM should provide good training on products like this."
"I would like to see message duplication included."
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.
