We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus and IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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."It allows us to avoid the need for consumers to understand multiple API protocols and security arrangements, and in some circumstances can reduce the impact of systems being unavailable."
"We use IBM Integration Bus for document conversions."
"The interface is quite stable."
"IBM Integration Bus has been effective in facilitating our messaging and service-oriented architecture (SOA) or bus architecture. So, we're already utilizing it to transform the data from the source it's sending. It converts the data from the format the source sends it into the format the destination system requires. So we are transforming the messages, which are required by the destination system; that's the one way."
"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."
"From a performance point of view, it's very good and it doesn't need very much in terms of CPU resources."
"The solution's features are all quite useful. We use all of them."
"What I like best are the monitoring features."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"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."
"The solution needs to simplify its documentation, such as the user and operation manuals, to make them even easier to understand."
"Sometimes migration takes too long."
"IBM Integration Bus could be easier to manage, but this is true of all vendors. It doesn't always do what it says on the box."
"IBM Integration Bus could improve by having a more lightweight installation. Additionally, automation could improve."
"The interface could be more user-friendly."
"I would like to be able to run and install this solution on different platforms."
"They need to come up with Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). It should also have a feature for integrating with those applications that are on the cloud."
"Today, the IBM business rule engine, the DataPower is outside the Enterprise Service Bus. It's sold as a different feature or application. If it could be integrated, then it's able to handle a lot more of what we are doing now rather than just have a stateless ESB that you can't do much on, and a set of normal business rules."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"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 images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 65 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". On the other hand, 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". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM Integration Bus vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.