IBM Integration Bus Reviews

My primary use case of IBM Integration Bus is for designing and developing solutions. We use App Connect Enterprise as a micro ESB and, in cases where we need rapid development, as a microservices platform as well. I'm currently dealing with an on-premises version, but it's deployed on an internal cloud. 

One of the most valuable features is how seamless and easy to use this solution is. This is a fantastic solution and a very measured product. 

There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements. 

I have been working in IBM for almost 17 years now. 

This solution is stable. It's a fantastic solution and a very measured product. We only need one person to maintain the DevOps pipeline, but we do have a team of 10 developers to deliver the work.

IBM's technical support is fantastic. Their support process is very good. 

This solution is cloud-based. We are using it in a container image, so the one time CI/CD setup is there, in the pipeline setup, and after that the process is very seamless. We just check in our code, and then the pipeline creates an image of it and deploys it onto our private cloud platform. So it's very seamless and there's no hassle involved. 

Initially, we needed about three people for deployment: one for administrative activities, one with DevOps knowledge, and one developer. 

We implemented through an in-house team. I work as an architect, but we have a DevOps team that takes care of maintaining the pipelines and as-needed administration activities. 

I generally do not get involved in the licensing or pricing because I'm a hardcore technical guy, but I'm aware of the fact that IBM is highly expensive, so not everybody can afford it. All the products are licensed. 

I have heard of MuleSoft, a platform that provides a solution for API management, ESB, everything. When it comes to ESB, they have a package or facility feature for unit testing as well, called MUnit or something. From an ESB development point of view, this is the complete package. I was lacking these features in App Connect, but I heard that the latest version includes things like unit testing, automation features, all those things. I also heard that they added AI—I'm not sure where, but IBM is pretty big on that, as well as on adding more and more features in that area. 

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. This is a very measured tool and IBM has been doing a splendid job with this particular platform. Earlier, it was only possible to have an on-premises installation, but now that it's compatible with the cloud, it's a very seamless and fantastic tool. Especially with the current release, I really like this product. 

In terms of advice I would give to those considering implementation, I would say that there could be a problem with integration. Nothing to do with the tools, but from a resourcing point of view. I've seen that a lot of people with Java expertise can face problems when being introduced to this technology without proper training. When a Java developer gets into this particular technology and starts developing stuff, they may be unaware of certain best practices, certain standards, certain conventions that should be used. In my team, when we hire new resources, Java is an advantage for us and a person with Java knowledge is highly welcome, but when we look at their knowledge in the technology itself, there may be issues. This platform is complex and only a person with the right knowledge will be able to deliver. So my suggestion to those who are considering implementation: while resourcing, ensure that you've got the right knowledge on the architect side as well as the developer side. 

Although my organization is not a bank, it does have communication needs throughout its different departments. 

While maintenance and support of the solution, like that of Dell Boomi, are very expensive, in the long run, though, say... six months to a year, it will be worthwhile for running one's business. The expense stems from the communication needs which necessitate the support of many preferences.

An issue which should be addressed concerns the difficulty of the product connecting to SAP.  In contrast, Mule has developed many connectors so that it can interact with multiple points. This allows us to write our own Java programming for, say, better database connectivity.

As the databases have different versions, we have different connectors for opening them. 

With Mule Force, we will write our own connector.  

While we do have different types of storage capacity, including that of hardware, RAM and transactions per minute, this is an area that should be addressed. There needs to be more storage capacity for logins and database file storage. Transactions per minute is a point that will need to be hammered out by senior management in its SLA. 

When it comes to the technical support of IBM Integration Bus, we are talking about a good product. As with Oracle and Microsoft, the problem with IBM revolves around maintenance, as well as integration. Owing to the expense, there will be insufficient resources. 

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus was not complex. 

The product is usually very easy to deploy.

The product was only integrated with IBM servers. 

As mentioned, the maintenance and support are very expensive. 

Every bank has data available in the mainframe and there is a need to connect to this and extract it, which is where ELT loads come in.

While I would not say that IBM Integration Bus is not a good product, I would point out that it is limited to its own infrastructure. IBM Integration Bus lacks connectors for connecting with other technologies, even though it is not limited to its one cloud. These must be developed from other technologies, such as Azure. If I wish to interact with Azure in the cloud then I must develop a connector to do so. Moreover, IBM is large and we need to have smaller solutions. 

I would rate it a four out of ten. 

We are a system integrator and this is one of the products that we propose for our clients.

Some of our clients for this product are banks.

IBM Integration Bus is flexible, easy to use, and easy to configure.

I would like to be able to build an Integration Bus cluster that is active-active.

This is a scalable product.

We have five or six customers who are using it.

I have seen no problems with respect to technical support.

We have experienced no trouble installing this product.

It takes a few days to deploy.

We have a team of 10 or 11 people for deployment and maintenance.

The pricing could be improved to make it more competitive.

This is a product that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The solution is primarily a middleware. It's security-enabled and we are using the same credentials for development. We plan on making a backend to handle growing requests.

The solution is similar to Adobe X Pro. We can intersect with any of those items.

The scalability is very good.

The integration with other tools is excellent. It integrates well with batch issues.

Overall, the solution works very well.

IBM could improve its connectivity. 

The solution needs to be better integrated with the cloud version of the solution.

The solution is constrained by the environment - whether it's on-premises or the cloud. The cloud seems to be more adaptable.

I've been using the solution since 2014.

The solution is very stable. We haven't found any bugs or glitches. There haven't been crashes. It's quite reliable.

We have more than 20 people that use the solution. We use it on a daily basis. The scalability is good and is simple to expand as necessary.

I didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup is simple enough. Right now, in its entirety, the download is very simple. It's actually a one-click solution.

Deployment takes very little time. It depends mostly on the load and what we are pushing out. However, it usually takes a matter of seconds.

We have 14 people in general on our team using the solution, and they are all able to perform maintenance.

I handled the implementation myself.

I don't have any information about licensing or costs. It's not something that I am in charge of.

We're just IBM customers. We're not partners and we don't have a relationship with the company.

In terms of on-premises vs cloud, I'd suggest users go to the cloud. It obviously depends on the market and the adoption rate.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The primary use case for the solution is infrastructure optimization. Most times the client wants to optimize their integration infrastructure and they want to simplify it. When they feel home-grown solutions are not scaling well for them in terms of complexity, in terms of speed to market, they look to this solution. Projects take long and they break down all the time. That's when the clients start thinking Integration Bus. It's a solution that offloads all the integrations of their system.

The solution offers pretty good pricing.

The technical support is great.

The solution is stable and can scale relatively easily.

The user interface is easy to navigate.

The performance is decent.

The solution offers good dashboards.

The management and monitoring on offer are very good.

IBM doesn't really have a very strong community surrounding the product. Most of its direct competitors are open source solutions, and those have an excellent and well-developed community around the tech to help users navigate the ins and outs of the product. IBM is lacking in this area. If they had more of a community, more people would know about the product. They should push to create a developer community around it and make the products more accessible to developers.

I've heard some clients are asking for autoscaling capabilities. It could improve DevOps. They might have something similar in other products, however, if they could introduce it within this product at some small level, it would make many clients happy.

We've been using the solution in the company for less than a year.

We've been pleased with the solution's reliability. It's stable. It doesn't crash or freeze. I don't recall facing any bugs or glitches. It just works well all the time.

The solution scales quite well. If a company needs to expand it out, they can do so easily.

Technical support has been good. They're responsive and knowledgeable. We've been satisfied with their support. It's been great.

The implementation is straightforward. It's not complex. What takes a long time, however, is implementing the workflows or projects. That's where the efforts is. In terms of implementation, the implementation is straightforward. However, building the integration of workflows can be a bit tricky. 

You have to pick the right project as the first project, due to the fact that you're introducing a new product inside an organization. The first project is important in terms of setting the stage for understanding the underlying functionality. It shouldn't be too complex. At the same time, it should be impactful enough that you get management support going forward. It should be a project that is big enough whereby you can see the impact of the Integration Bus. 

The pricing is pretty good. What they charge isn't unreasonable.

We're IBM partner-resellers.

The reason we've implemented the solution is driven more by our clients' demands. The clients want IBM Integration Bus, or they already have some investment in IBM Integration Bus. We want to build capability in it to support the clients. We don't have a level of experience with the solution.

My personal advice to others is to start small so that you give yourself a good preliminary base that's not too overwhelming. Most clients want to do everything with this solution, which is fine. However, it's always better to start small with a departmental project, as opposed to an enterprise-wide kind of thing. It is better to start small and tackle a practical project and get used to everything before going really big.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We implement this solution for our customers.

It has the ability to be deployed without rewriting the code. 

I would like for them to make the training much easier. Once you work with a sphere of people that can integrate the solution, then it's stable. But just to educate people, it's not that easy to do. It's not easy content to teach people.

I have been using it for over ten years. 

I have only contacted their support for implementing application integration.

Overall, they're good. They're able to replenish and reboot the data much easier.

The initial setup is straightforward.

IBM is huge once you start it up. There's not a lot of coding, not a lot of method to the mapping, and they have the need for application software management. 

I'd rate it a nine out of 10. It's stable across multiple platforms and across multiple applications. They're very strong and a trusted brand. They are patient and good friends. One of the only challenges is that it is hard to teach people.  

The interface is quite stable.

Licensing is too high. It is quite expensive. We don't have a lot of clients who apply for it because they cannot justify the price. They know it's a good product but it just is too expensive for them. So we have to send them to products that are cheaper. 

It's scalable. We don't have that concern for IBM products.

Expanding the product would depend on our client's needs. We don't have any restrictions. 

Our installation is quite fast, but the process or the competition of user testing is what takes a longer time. Normally the user has to do a Tableau test, so it's not just the deployment. After the installation, they have to spend time to test.

I would rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

We are looking forward to the pricing packaging because we do like the product, but we are don't go for it because the price is too high and we not able to sell it to our customer.

I am a developer and this is one of the products that I use in that capacity.

What I like best are the monitoring features.

Technical support is something that should be better.

Lowering the price would be an improvement.

The deployment should be easier.

I have been working with IBM Integration Bus for approximately three years.

This is a stable product.

We have not needed to scale because we use multithreading in the flow.

The technical support for this product is not very good. Sometimes, examples we get when we ask support for help do not work.

It also does not have a large community.

We did not use a similar product before implementing IBM Integration Bus. In some instances, we have used microservice applications instead.

The deployment is complex and you need to have an experienced administrator.

The price of this product could be lower.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.