TIBCO FTL Review

Static and dynamic TCP have been the most useful


What is our primary use case?

It's an ESB for both server-side as well as with eFTL, we are exposing messages to clients over web/mobile.

How has it helped my organization?

From the current direct socket architecture, we moved to an FTL based messaging layer which allowed us to not worry about individual functions but work on a single message/framework. 

What is most valuable?

  • Static and dynamic TCP have been the most useful. 
  • Easy on-boarding of the eFTL cluster, data store, and monitoring of connections have been really useful.

What needs improvement?

The UI is clunky for administration, eFTL at times is not fully stable and have observed a few crashes, and the content matcher could be improved for or conditions.

For how long have I used the solution?

One to three years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's fast, we are pumping in nearly 5GB of data in a day, and it just works. It's quite stable and reliable if configured right. It also allows reducing the payload sizes and has a nifty no-header policy.

How is customer service and technical support?

I really appreciate the technical support that was received. 

How was the initial setup?

It's a little complex to understand the network topologies. 

What about the implementation team?

In-house.

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

TIBCO FTL is one of the best product at the pricing it's offered.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

EMS.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: We are TIBCO Partner but the review comments are basis on our implementation at a customer site.
Add a Comment
Guest
Sign Up with Email