We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and PubSub+ Event Broker 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."IBM is still adding some features and coding some other systems on the security end. However, it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes."
"The solution is fast with end data compared to other messaging tools."
"Reliable messaging and throughput are the most valuable."
"It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters."
"IBM MQ's flexibility has sped up our active communication."
"Clustering is one of its most valuable features."
"This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API."
"The most valuable feature of PubSub+ Event Broker is the scaling integration. Prior to using the solution, it was done manually with a file, and it can be done instantly live."
"Going from something where we had outages and capacity issues constantly to a system that was able to scale with the massive market data and messaging spikes that happened during the initial stages of the COVID crisis in March, we were able to scale with 40 plus percent growth in our platform over the course of days."
"The valuable feature of PubSub+ Event Broker is the speed of processing, publishing, and consumption."
"When it comes to granularity, you can literally do anything regarding how the filtering works."
"Guaranteed Messaging allows for us to transport messages between on-prem and the cloud without any loss of data."
"As of now, the most valuable aspects are the topic-based subscription and the fanout exchange that we are using."
"When we went to add another installation in our private cloud, it was easy. We received support from Solace and the install was seamless with no issues."
"We've built a lot of products into it and it's been quite easy to feed market data onto the systems and put entitlements and controls around that. That was a big win for us when we were consolidating our platforms down. Trying to have one event bus, one messaging bus, for the whole globe, and consolidate everything over time, has been key for us. We've been able to do that through one API, even if it's across the different languages."
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"The licensing fees should be more cost-effective so that we can better pitch the product to our clients. With the pricing as it is, they tend to move away from IBM products."
"It would be great if the dashboard had additional features like a board design."
"The main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now."
"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."
"More documentation would be good because some features are not deeply implemented."
"The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box."
"It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions."
"We've pointed out some things with the DMR piece, the event mesh, in edge cases where we could see a problem. Something like 99 percent of users wouldn't ever see this problem, but it has to do with if you get multiple bad clients sending data over a WAN, for example. That could then impact other clients."
"We have requested to be able to get into the payload to do dynamic topic hierarchy building. A current workaround is using the message's header, where the business data can be put into this header and be used for a dynamic topic lookup. I want to see this in action when there are a couple of hundred cases live. E.g., how does it perform? From an administration perspective, is the ease of use there?"
"I would like them to design topic and queue schemas, mapping them to the enterprise data structure."
"The deployment process is complex."
"For improvements, I would suggest increasing the max payload size to a limit of 100MB or more. The current max payload size is limited to 5MB."
"If you create one event in the past, you cannot resend it."
"The integrations could improve in PubSub+ Event Broker."
"It could be cheaper. It could also have easier usage. It is a brilliant product, but it is quite complex to use."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while PubSub+ Event Broker is ranked 6th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 15 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while PubSub+ Event Broker is rated 8.6. 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 PubSub+ Event Broker writes "Event life cycle management changes the way a designer or architect will design a topic and discover what is available". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and Anypoint MQ, whereas PubSub+ Event Broker is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Confluent and Amazon EventBridge. See our IBM MQ vs. PubSub+ Event Broker report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors and best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) 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.