ActiveMQ vs. IBM MQ

As of March 2019, ActiveMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue with 7 reviews vs IBM MQ which is ranked 1st in Message Queue with 63 reviews. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "I appreciate the queue, durable topic, and selector features. I would like to see a forked solution of AMQ with AMQP". The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "I like that the ability to add applications to it is simple". ActiveMQ is most compared with RabbitMQ, IBM MQ and Apache Kafka. IBM MQ is most compared with RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ and Apache Kafka. See our ActiveMQ vs. IBM MQ report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
ActiveMQ Logo
25,825 views|22,010 comparisons
IBM MQ Logo
29,770 views|19,380 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveMQ vs. IBM MQ and other solutions. Updated: March 2019.
325,421 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
The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration.Reliable message delivery and mirroring.It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable.Message broadcasting: There could be a use case sending the same message to all consumers. So as a producer, I broadcast the message to a topic. Then, whichever consumers are subscribed to the topic can consume the same message.I appreciate many features including queue, topic, durable topic, and selectors. I also value a different support for different protocols such as MQTT and AMQP. It has full support for EIP, REST, Message Groups, UDP, and TCP.

Read more »

It improves reliability and guarantees that messages are not lost.Reliable integration between MQ servers is the most valuable feature.Data integrity, reliability and security are valuable features that IBM MQ possesses.There is no dependency on the end party service's run status.We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses.It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem.Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications.Integrates between distributed systems: For example, it can help integrate processing between mainframe, client-server, web-based applications by integrating the messages, supporting Service Oriented Architecture.

Read more »

Cons
Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle.It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues.The clustering for sure needs improvement. When we were using it, the only thing available was an active/passive relationship that had to be maintained via shared file storage. That model includes a single point of failure in that storage medium.Distributed message processing would be a nice addition.Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers.

Read more »

I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop.I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially.MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ.SonicMQ CAA (continuous availability architecture) functionality on auto failover and data persistence should be made available without a shared drive, as it exists in multi-instance queue managers.It could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign.the level of training as well as product marketing for this product are not that great. You rarely find a good training institute that provides training. Many of the architects in several organization are neither aware of the product nor interested in using it. IBM should provide good training on products like this.It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated.The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM).

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
I think the software is free.It’s open source, ergo free.I use open source with standard Apache licensing.

Read more »

To implement such an IBM solution, a company has to pay a lot in term of licensing and consultancy. A pricing model might be a better option.In terms of cost, IBM MQ is slightly on the higher side.IBM MQ appliance has pricing options, but they are costly.99.999 percent availability for less than a penny per message over the past 25 years. IBM MQ is the cheapest software in the IBM software portfolio, and it is one of the best.Pricing could be better, as with all IBM products. But their performance in production, along with security and scalability, will pay returns in the long run.I think the pricing is reasonable, especially with IIB as a part of it.Use the new and lightweight version (Liberty) to lower licensing costs. It is also easier to upgrade/maintain.IBM MQ has a flexible license model based on the Processor Value Unit (PVU) and I recommend it.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue solutions are best for your needs.
325,421 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Answers from the Community
Miriam Tover
Winster JoseReal User

ActiveMQ offers very high throughput and low latency compared to IBM MQ.
ActiveMQ supports standard messaging protocols like AMQP, STOMP, MQTT etc whereas IBM MQ just comply with JMS and its own protocol. IBM MQ Light supports AMQP though.
IBM MQ is much preferred in enterprise environment, probably due to the support. Redhat AMQ offers enterprise support on ActiveMQ.
AFAIK documentation wise, they are at par.
Both support clustering. But only in ActiveMQ real storage of messages in another broker which is less loaded happens. IBM MQ just enables communication between Queue managers.
But I would prefer to put a few more options on the table.
1. RabbitMQ - fully compliant with protocols, supports replication and distribution of messages, throughput in tens of thousands
2. Redis - Light weight single threaded server. Supports pub sub messaging and supports HA via sentinel and clustering for distributed messaging
3. Kafka - Preferred mechanism for data streaming. Throughput in millions.
4. ZeroMQ - Brokerless messaging platform. Very high throughput.
5. NanoMsg - Brokerless. Claims to be advanced than ZeroMQ

13 February 19
Jack AngoeReal User

From my Experience so far i will go for RabbitMQ its rock solid and robust with a simple learning curve. Its free and has great documentation available

12 February 19
Ranking
4th
out of 13 in Message Queue
Views
25,825
Comparisons
22,010
Reviews
7
Followers
597
Avg. Rating
8.0
1st
out of 13 in Message Queue
Views
29,770
Comparisons
19,380
Reviews
63
Followers
793
Avg. Rating
8.6
Top Comparisons
Compared 49% of the time.
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Also Known As
AMQWebSphere MQ
Learn
Apache
IBM
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
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm29%
Insurance Company19%
Mining And Metals Company12%
Transportation Company8%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm29%
Insurance Company15%
Retailer13%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm34%
Insurance Company17%
Retailer12%
Engineering Company8%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business15%
Midsize Enterprise23%
Large Enterprise62%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business8%
Midsize Enterprise8%
Large Enterprise84%
REVIEWERS
Small Business2%
Midsize Enterprise10%
Large Enterprise88%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business11%
Midsize Enterprise3%
Large Enterprise86%
Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveMQ vs. IBM MQ and other solutions. Updated: March 2019.
325,421 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Message Queue 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.

Sign Up with Email