Compare ActiveMQ vs. IBM MQ

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
ActiveMQ Logo
19,011 views|16,793 comparisons
IBM MQ Logo
26,244 views|19,271 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Apache, Solace and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: June 2021.
509,641 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."

More ActiveMQ Pros »

"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API.""The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day.""It is stable, reliable, and scalable.""Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ.""It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters.""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.""What is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up."

More IBM MQ Pros »

Cons
"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."

More ActiveMQ Cons »

"I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution.""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.""I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka.""They could integrate monitoring into the solution, a bit more than they do now. Currently, they have opened the REST API so you can get statistic and accounting information and details from MQ and build your own monitoring, if you want. IBM can improve the solution in this direction.""What could be improved is the high-availability. The way MQ works is that it separates the high-availability from the workload balance. The scalability should be easier. If something happens so that the messages are not available on each node, scalability is only possible for the workload balance.""The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset.""In terms of volume, it is not able to handle a huge volume. We also have limitations of queues related to IBM MQ. We often need to handle a very big volume, but currently we do have limitations. If those kinds of limitations could be relaxed, it would help us to work better.""You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."

More IBM MQ Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
"The price is high.""There is a different platform price between Windows, z/OS, and iSeries.""IBM products, in general, have high licensing costs and support costs are too high.""Most of our customers are quite happy with the solution but they have an issue with the cost. They want to move to cheaper solutions.""It is a very expensive product compared to the open source products in the market.""It would be a 10 out of 10 if it wasn't so expensive.""It's a very expensive product.""IBM MQ is expensive and they charge based on the CPU."

More IBM MQ Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
509,641 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Top Answer: Hi As someone with 45+ years of experience in the Transaction and Message Processing world, I have seen many "MQ" solutions that have come into the market place. From my perspective, while each… more »
Top Answer: Encryption and the fact that we have not had any data loss issues so far have been very valuable features. IBM MQ is well encrypted so that we are well within our compliance and regulatory… more »
Top Answer: This solution requires a license and we have purchased an enterprise license.
Ranking
Views
19,011
Comparisons
16,793
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
522
Rating
7.0
Views
26,244
Comparisons
19,271
Reviews
34
Average Words per Review
536
Rating
8.2
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
AMQ
WebSphere MQ
Learn More
Overview

Apache ActiveMQ is the most popular and powerful open source messaging and Integration Patterns server.

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License

    IBM MQ provides the universal messaging backbone for service-oriented architecture (SOA) connectivity. It connects virtually any commercial IT system, whether on premise, in the cloud, or a mixture. For more than 20 years IBM has led the market in messaging middleware and more than 10,000 businesses across all geographies and industries rely on IBM MQ.

    Visit for your trial here.

Offer
Learn more about ActiveMQ
Learn more about IBM MQ
Sample Customers
University of Washington, Daugherty Systems, CSC, STG Technologies, Inc. 
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm43%
Transportation Company29%
Energy/Utilities Company14%
Computer Software Company14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company35%
Comms Service Provider16%
Financial Services Firm10%
Media Company6%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm37%
Retailer12%
Insurance Company11%
Transportation Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company29%
Financial Services Firm20%
Comms Service Provider14%
Media Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business14%
Midsize Enterprise21%
Large Enterprise64%
REVIEWERS
Small Business5%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise86%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business6%
Midsize Enterprise10%
Large Enterprise84%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Apache, Solace and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: June 2021.
509,641 professionals have used our research since 2012.

ActiveMQ is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 35 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.0, while IBM MQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "Stable with a straightforward setup, but better documentation is needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "We don't lose messages in transit and we can store messages and forward them when required". ActiveMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker, Anypoint MQ and TIBCO Enterprise Message Service.

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.