We performed a comparison between IBM Event Streams and IBM MQ 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."The stability has been good."
"I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."
"This product has good security."
"Combined with IBM MQ, this product is our primary data store."
"IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team."
"The MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity."
"The scalability of IBM MQ is good."
"The methodology and the way in which the platform has been produced as a standard is most valuable. There are so many different versions of it now, but the actual basic functionality and the simplicity of it have made it far easier to be implemented in so many different instances. When I worked with the OS/2 or PS/2 machine environment, the messaging mechanisms were based upon IBM MQ. It is so versatile, which is the main reason that I'm a fan of it."
"Setting up MQ is easy. We had a "grow as you go" implementation strategy. We started with a single channel and progressed to multiple queues and channels depending on the systems and integrations with other systems. It was a gradual deployment and expansion as we grew the services interacting with the core system using MQ."
"This solution has improved and influenced the communication between different applications, then standardized that communication."
"The product's interface needs improvement."
"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."
"It would be helpful if they could help us explain why they, as in, the customers, should use the product and the overall benefits."
"At a recent conference, I went to a presentation that had the latest version and it has amazing stuff that's coming out. So, I am excited to use those, specifically surrounding the web console and the fact that it's API integrated."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"It could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign."
"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."
"We have had scalability issues with some projects in the past."
"The solution isn't free. There are other solutions, like RabbitMQ, which are open source and absolutely free to use. It's one reason we are moving away from IBM."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
IBM Event Streams is ranked 11th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. IBM Event Streams is rated 8.4, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Event Streams writes "Easy to use, stable, has a good interface, and the security is good". 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". IBM Event Streams is most compared with Apache Kafka and Red Hat AMQ, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and Real-Time Innovations DDS. See our IBM Event Streams 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.