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."The stability has been good."
"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."
"I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses."
"There are a lot of extensible options for security, i.e., various things you can do. It's pretty easy to navigate."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"The reliability of the queuing is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is very easy to work with."
"What is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up."
"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."
"I have found that the solution scales well."
"The product's interface needs improvement."
"It would be helpful if they could help us explain why they, as in, the customers, should use the product and the overall benefits."
"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."
"IBM HQ's scalability isn't the best."
"There are many complications with IBM MQ servers."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"It is expensive. The cost is high. There should be more improvement in the new age of technologies."
"The issue is that they're using a very old clustering model."
"I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop."
"The initial setup is difficult. Creating your own cluster is difficult. Working with cluster repositories is difficult. Issue management with IBM MQ is difficult."
"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."
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.
