We compared IBM MQ and ActiveMQ based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
IBM MQ is highly praised for its reliability, scalability, security, and integration capabilities, along with positive remarks on customer service and pricing. On the other hand, ActiveMQ is valued for its efficient messaging, integration, and versatility, with notable customer service. However, areas for improvement include documentation, interface, and stability/performance issues.
Features: IBM MQ is praised for its reliability, scalability, security, and ease of integration, while ActiveMQ offers reliable messaging, seamless integration, efficient message handling, versatile configuration, and robust support for messaging protocols.
Pricing and ROI: IBM MQ is praised for its reasonable and cost-effective pricing structure, manageable setup costs, and user-friendly licensing process. On the other hand, ActiveMQ is commended for its favorable pricing structure, minimal setup costs, and positive user experiences with the licensing process., IBM MQ has been praised for enhancing efficiency, improving communication and integration, streamlining workflows, and reducing downtime. Users appreciated its reliability, scalability, and ease of use. This resulted in cost savings and increased productivity. On the other hand, ActiveMQ was commended for its reliability, performance, and ease of use. It improved messaging capabilities, increased efficiency, and offered seamless integration. Both products seem to have provided positive ROI.
Room for Improvement: IBM MQ has been identified by users as needing enhancements in certain areas, while ActiveMQ could benefit from improved documentation, a more intuitive user interface, and increased stability and performance.
Deployment and customer support: IBM MQ and ActiveMQ have different user experiences when it comes to the duration required for establishing new tech solutions. While some IBM MQ users reported a range of three months to one week for deployment and setup, ActiveMQ users reported spending several months on deployment and an additional week on setup, but some were able to complete both in just one week., IBM MQ's customer service is highly regarded for its promptness, effectiveness, expertise, and reliability. Users appreciate the help they receive from the support team. ActiveMQ's customer service is praised for being responsive, helpful, and exceeding expectations. Users value the prompt resolution of concerns and the knowledge of the support team.
The summary above is based on 29 interviews we conducted recently with IBM MQ and ActiveMQ users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It provides the best support services."
"There is a vibrant community, and it is one of the strongest points of this product. We always get answers to our problems. So, my experience with the community support has been good."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API."
"The first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage."
"Combined with IBM MQ, this product is our primary data store."
"We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses."
"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."
"Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
"I appreciate the level of control we have over queue managers, queues, and the messaging itself. That provides good security. So, the control and scalability of messaging are important to me."
"IBM MQ's flexibility has sped up our active communication."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"The tool needs to improve its installation part which is lengthy. The product is already working on that aspect so that the complete installation gets completed within a month."
"From the TPS point of view, it's like 100,000 transactions that need to be admitted from different devices and also from the different minor small systems. Those are best fit for Kafka. We have used it on the customer side, and we thought of giving a try to ActiveMQ, but we have to do a lot of performance tests and approval is required before we can use it for this scale."
"There are some stability issues."
"It would be great if it is included as part of the solution, as Kafka is doing. Even though the use case of Kafka is different, If something like data extraction is possible, or if we can experiment with partition tolerance and other such things, that will be great."
"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."
"It could always be more stable and secure."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka."
"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 initial setup is difficult. Creating your own cluster is difficult. Working with cluster repositories is difficult. Issue management with IBM MQ is difficult."
"It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."
"IBM MQ could improve capacity, monitoring, and automatization."
ActiveMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "Allows for asynchronous communication, enabling services to operate independently but issues with stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". ActiveMQ is most compared with Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, Amazon SQS, VMware Tanzu Data Services and Apache Kafka, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Anypoint MQ. See our ActiveMQ vs. IBM MQ 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.
From my Experience so far i will go for RabbitMQ its rock solid and robust with a simple learning curve. Its free and has great documentation available