We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and TIBCO Rendezvous based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Activity Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
"This solution has improved and influenced the communication between different applications, then standardized that communication."
"We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses."
"I like the MQ's simplicity and rock-solid stability. I've never experienced a failure in two decades caused by the product itself. It has only failed due to human error."
"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."
"It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem."
"TIBCO Rendezvous has a strategy to communicate in the network between the DMO of the product. They provide strategy through secure communication. They use the UDP protocol, but It's not a resilient protocol. They put another protocol to create a type of guarantee. It has a high level of communication between the DMO. This is the best capability the solution has."
"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."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
"The monitoring could be improved. It's a pain to monitor the throughput through the MQ. The maximum throughput for a queue or single channel isn't clear. We could also use some professional services by IBM to assess and tune the performance."
"I wanted to upgrade Windows Server. It's not that easy to move."
"I don’t like legacy view of MQ."
"The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM)."
"It could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign."
"IBM MQ could improve by adding more protocols or APIs for a standard application, such as MuleSoft."
"TIBCO Rendezvous is currently restricted in a cloud environment and it would be more useful in a hybrid cloud setup. It does not work correctly in a cloud environment alone. This is something they can improve in the future."
Earn 20 points
IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 158 reviews while TIBCO Rendezvous is ranked 4th in Business Activity Monitoring. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while TIBCO Rendezvous is rated 8.0. 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 TIBCO Rendezvous writes "Good communication, stable, and responsive support". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas TIBCO Rendezvous is most compared with TIBCO FTL and PubSub+ Event Broker. See our IBM MQ vs. TIBCO Rendezvous report.
See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors and best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Activity Monitoring 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.