We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and webMethods Integration Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"The solution has good integration."
"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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"It frankly fills the gap between IT and business by having approval and policy enforcement on each state and cycle of the asset from the moment it gets created until it is retired."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"Broker and UM are the best features."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"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."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Support is expensive."
"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."
"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. 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 webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Azure Data Factory. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.