We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Microsoft .NET Framework based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"It's easy to create and integrate things."
"Initial setup is straightforward. All the components are readily available."
"The solution is easy to use if the user is a developer or some technical person."
"The solution's technical support is very good...The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"When we talk about .NET development, we use Visual Studio IDE to create these things. In recent years, there have been a lot of improvements in Visual Studio 2022. It would be a daunting task to list all of the features that have benefited us, as it would require a lot of time and effort. However, there are definitely many improvements year after year in .NET development."
"The solution is not limited in storage, is customizable and simple to use."
"Microsoft Platform is the only viable solution when I wish to do something that is not supposed to be cross-platform."
"Microsoft .NET Framework reduces the cost of entry and enables the development of applications with mature and enterprise features, thereby lowering the entry barriers."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"I would like more web integration."
"The product's price is an area of concern, making it an area where improvements are required."
".NET Is still heavy or dependant on other Microsoft libraries and frameworks."
"They could enhance support for Python within Visual Studio, as integrating Microsoft products with other frameworks can present a steep learning curve."
"The learning curve could be improved."
"The product could have a better framework for application development."
"Needs stronger security with respect to cloud issues."
"In my opinion, this solution can be improved by providing out-of-the-box support for different types of libraries."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Windows Process Activation Services. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Microsoft .NET Framework report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.