We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Redis 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."Clustering is one of its most valuable features."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"The clusterization which results in persistence is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is fast with end data compared to other messaging tools."
"It offers better reliability and monitoring compared to other tools."
"Combined with IBM MQ, this product is our primary data store."
"I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use."
"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."
"Redis is better tested and is used by large companies. I haven't found a direct alternative to what Redis offers. Plus, there are a lot of support and learning resources available, which help you use Redis efficiently."
"It makes operations more efficient. The information processing is very fast, and very responsive. It's all about the technology."
"I use Redis mostly to cache repeated data that is required."
"The most valuable features of Redis are its ease of use and speed. It does not have access to the disc and it is fast."
"The best thing about Redis is its ability to handle large amounts of data without frequently hitting the database. You can store data in temporary memory, especially for high-volume data."
"The solution's technical support team is good...The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"The in-memory data makes it fast."
"The online interface is very fast and easy to use."
"It would be great if the dashboard had additional features like a board design."
"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 are looking at the latest version, and we hope that resilience, high availability, and monitoring will be improved. It can have some more improvements in the heterogeneous messaging feature. The current solution is on-premises, so good integration with public cloud messaging solutions would be useful."
"It's hard to put in a nutshell, but it's sort of developed as more of an on-premise solution. It hasn't moved much away from that."
"I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market."
"MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ."
"The development of clusters could improve. Additionally, it would be helpful if it was integrated with Amazon AWS or Google Cloud."
"It's actually quite expensive."
"If we use a lot of data, it will eventually cost us a lot."
"I would prefer it if there was more information available about Redis. That would make it easier for new beginners. Currently, there is a lack of resources."
"The tool should improve by increasing its size limits and handling dynamic data better. We use the client ID or associate it with a key for static content. The solution will not be easy for a beginner. Unless you understand SQL data, it will be difficult to understand and use Redis. It also needs to be user-friendly."
"Sometimes, we use Redis as a cluster, and the clusters can sometimes suffer some issues and bring some downtime to your application."
"There is a lack of documentation on the scalability of the solution."
"The only thing is the lack of a GUI application. There was a time when we needed to resolve an issue in production. If we had a GUI, it would have been easier."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Redis is ranked 7th in Database as a Service with 11 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Redis is rated 8.4. 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 Redis writes "Enables efficient caching and helps users fetch and save data quickly". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and Avada Software Infrared360, whereas Redis is most compared with Google Cloud Memorystore, Amazon SQS, Chroma, ActiveMQ and Amazon ElastiCache. See our IBM MQ vs. Redis 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.
