We performed a comparison between Amazon MQ and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations."
"Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution."
"The solution is easy to understand and even medium developers can easily start using it."
"IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"IBM MQ is robust compared to other products in the market. It also gives you support from the IBM team."
"I haven't seen any severe issues related to it. Most of the time it's running. That is the advantage of IBM MQ."
"This product has good security."
"The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day."
"We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses."
"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"Amazon MQ is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises. It's open-source software, which means it's cheaper than its competitors."
"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"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 would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution."
"IBM MQ could streamline its complexity to be more like Kafka without the channel complexities of clusters, making it more straightforward."
"Scaling is difficult with IBM MQ."
"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."
"I'm not sure that current version has event-driven mechanism requests that people go for. I would like the latest version to come with both type of event mechanisms: an email server and a POP server. If that is not there, then that would be a great addition."
"It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products."
"It's hard to put in a nutshell, but it's sort of developed as more of an on-premise solution. It hasn't moved much away from that."
Amazon MQ is ranked 9th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. Amazon MQ is rated 8.4, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon MQ writes "Provides you with a URL where you can either send or retrieve messages". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". Amazon MQ is most compared with Amazon SQS, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and EMQX, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Software AG Universal Messaging. See our Amazon MQ vs. IBM MQ report.
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.
