We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and VMware Tanzu Data Services 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.
"It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features."
"It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem."
"A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."
"It is useful for exchanging information between applications."
"Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7."
"It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"The solution is very easy to work with."
"Some of the most valuable features are publish and subscribe, fanout, and queues."
"Simple and straightforward admin portals: Made it easy for users and worked out excellently for our requirements"
"A very good, open-source platform."
"The product has been stable and I have never faced any kind of problems with it."
"The most valuable feature is that it's really customizable."
"It's super easy to deploy and it also supports different languages and analytics."
"The most valuable feature for us is horizontal scaling."
"Large amounts of data can be moved pretty fast using the solution."
"I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop."
"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"
"We have had scalability issues with some projects in the past."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"I can't say pricing is good."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box."
"It is expensive. The cost is high. There should be more improvement in the new age of technologies."
"There are some security concerns that have been raised with this product."
"Maintenance is time-consuming."
"Some integration with other platforms like design tools, and ETL development tools, that will enable some advanced functionality, like fully down processing, etc."
"The product is pretty hard to configure."
"VMware RabbitMQ's configuration process could be easier to understand."
"The product has to improve the crisis management, especially in memory issues."
"It will be very useful if we could communicate with other database types from Greenplum (using a database link)."
"RabbitMQ is clearly better supported on Linux than it is on Windows. There are idiosyncrasies in the Windows version that are not there on Linux."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while VMware Tanzu Data Services is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 81 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while VMware Tanzu Data Services 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 VMware Tanzu Data Services writes "Reliable queueing functionality and versatile tool that can be used with any programming languages ". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, Red Hat AMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Anypoint MQ, whereas VMware Tanzu Data Services is most compared with Anypoint MQ, Apache Kafka, Red Hat AMQ, ActiveMQ and Oracle Exadata. See our IBM MQ vs. VMware Tanzu Data Services 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.
