We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, IBM, VMware and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software."I appreciate the level of control we have over queue managers, queues, and the messaging itself. That provides good security. So, the control and scalability of messaging are important to me."
"The clusterization which results in persistence is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"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."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"This product has good security."
"Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
"The solution allows one to easily configure an IBM MQQueueManager."
"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."
"Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market."
"IBM MQ could streamline its complexity to be more like Kafka without the channel complexities of clusters, making it more straightforward."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"In terms of volume, it is not able to handle a huge volume. We also have limitations of queues related to IBM MQ. We often need to handle a very big volume, but currently we do have limitations. If those kinds of limitations could be relaxed, it would help us to work better."
"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."
"The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset."
"I would just like a more user-friendly experience to do common administration tasks. I know that you can use MQ Explorer, but having something that's already built in would definitely be useful."
"If they could come up with monitoring dashboards that would be good. We are using external monitoring tools, apart from our IBM MQ, to monitor IBM MQ. If we could get monitoring tools or dashboards to keep everything simple for the user to understand, that would be good."
"JBoss could add more automation."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is ranked 12th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS 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 Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS writes "It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is most compared with Apache Kafka.
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.