Sunil SahooManager at a financial services firm
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective."
"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."
"I do not think that this solution is easy to use and the documentation of this solution has a lot of problems and can be improved in the next release. Most of the time, the images in the document are from older versions."
"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."
"Amazon SQS is more affordable compared to other solutions."
"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."
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) is a fully managed message queuing service that enables you to decouple and scale microservices, distributed systems, and serverless applications. SQS eliminates the complexity and overhead associated with managing and operating message oriented middleware, and empowers developers to focus on differentiating work. Using SQS, you can send, store, and receive messages between software components at any volume, without losing messages or requiring other services to be available. Get started with SQS in minutes using the AWS console, Command Line Interface or SDK of your choice, and three simple commands.
SQS offers two types of message queues. Standard queues offer maximum throughput, best-effort ordering, and at-least-once delivery. SQS FIFO queues are designed to guarantee that messages are processed exactly once, in the exact order that they are sent.
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.
Amazon SQS is ranked 6th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 35 reviews. Amazon SQS is rated 8.0, while IBM MQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "An affordable, easy-to-scale solution that is simple to deploy and maintain". 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". Amazon SQS is most compared with Amazon MQ, Apache Kafka, Oracle Event Hub Cloud Service, Anypoint MQ and ActiveMQ, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and IBM Event Streams.
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.