We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat AMQ 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."We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses."
"The solution can scale well."
"The most valuable feature is the interaction within the system."
"Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications."
"We have implemented business to business transactions over MQ messaging. The guaranteed and once only delivery ensures business integrity."
"The solution is easy to understand and even medium developers can easily start using it."
"It is stable, reliable, and scalable."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"This product is well adopted on the OpenShift platform. For organizations like ours that use OpenShift for many of our products, this is a good feature."
"AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination."
"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."
"Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market."
"IBM could revamp the interface. The API is huge, but some developers find it limiting because of the cost. They tend to wrap the API course into the JMS, which means they're missing out on some good features. They should work a little bit on the API exposure."
"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."
"At a recent conference, I went to a presentation that had the latest version and it has amazing stuff that's coming out. So, I am excited to use those, specifically surrounding the web console and the fact that it's API integrated."
"The product does not allow users to access data from API or external networks since it can only be used in a closed network, making it an area where improvements are required."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 7 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat AMQ is rated 8.2. 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 Red Hat AMQ writes "A stable, open-source technology, with a convenient deployment". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, PubSub+ Event Broker and Amazon SQS, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware Tanzu Data Services, IBM Event Streams and Amazon MQ. See our IBM MQ vs. Red Hat AMQ 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.
