IBM WebSphere Message Broker Review

Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ


What is our primary use case?

We had different use cases such as point-to-point, and public subscribers. We have some APIs building business Message Broker and we have divisions such as the legacy mainframe. 

We pretty much use everything. Most of the integration is done with Message Broker.

How has it helped my organization?

Working in retail we get a lot of traffic on Black Fridays and Cyber Mondays, and during that time, whatever serves have been deployed we want to scale them vertically. 

We can create multiple nodes within the service itself and when we are not using it, we can stop all of those nodes.

Most of what we have is on MQ for communication, and it integrates well with MQ.

What is most valuable?

Before the cloud, it was very easy for us to build and it was quick to integrate.

Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage. 

It integrates with MQ.

Scaling up and down is easy for us using execution groups and nodes.

It is easy to set up and deploy.

What needs improvement?

If you want to connect to the database, it provides solutions in India, but you have to purchase it separately. They are not mature enough and we have difficulties using them. They are expensive and not worth the money we are spending on them.

I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons.

Scalability needs improvement, it was easy to scale before microservices and Docker.

Technical support is good but they could have a better response time.

I think that they should provide us with some kind of capabilities that can be deployed. For example, if they have integration nodes that can be deployed separately instead of having a new, big server that has different components, to give us the capabilities to deploy everything on our own instead of building them up together. It would benefit us when it comes to scaling and building.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using this solution for seven years.

We started with Version 7 and now we are at 10. 

We are planning to use Version 11 and move to the cloud. It's still in process.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I would say that it's pretty stable, we have quite a bit running on it. It depends on how we configure it or what kind of infrastructure we are providing. For example, if we migrate from an old version to the new version and it's not done properly, you will experience it crashing every time. We had to build properly around it to achieve the proper results.

If it is being used with a simple deployment or as a server, without doing a proper configuration, then it may not work well.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It was scalable before microservices and Docker. It is now looked at differently. With the new version of Message Broker, it's promising to get capabilities that we can use.

We have a team of 10 to 15 developers, senior developers, and leads who are using this product.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support is really good.

I would rate them an eight out of ten because it goes from level one, two, or three and sometimes it takes time, based on the priority of the ticket that we are creating.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Previously, we were using Profusion. It was along the same lines as IBM WebSphere Message Broker. We ran into many different issues and at one time, we were running two solutions, Message Broker and an Oracle solution. Oracle has a database with different capabilities. It records every question that comes in. It was very difficult to maintain, and it just kept crashing and consumed the memory.

It has so many issues, we stopped using it and went with IBM WebSphere Message Broker.

How was the initial setup?

If you compare it with the previous versions, this was pretty straightforward and easy to set up.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

There are always additional fees.

What other advice do I have?

It's a good solution but it's questionable now that microservers have come into it. I can't really comment on whether I would recommend this solution for those who are looking to implement this solution, because everyone has their own use case.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Message Broker an eight out of ten. I had a good experience with this solution, and have not had any issues that we could not fix or handle.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
More IBM WebSphere Message Broker reviews from users
...who compared it with Oracle Service Bus
Add a Comment
Guest