Compare Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM MQ

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Aurea CX Messenger Logo
1,673 views|791 comparisons
IBM MQ Logo
32,254 views|23,821 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Use Aurea CX Messenger? Share your opinion.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
"The solution offers excellent stability."

More Aurea CX Messenger 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
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."

More Aurea CX Messenger Cons »

"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.""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."

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 Business Activity Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
441,478 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The solution offers excellent stability.
Top Answer: The licensing costs on a yearly basis are around $200,000. There are no additional costs besides the licensing fees. For example, you do not have to pay extra for technical support, etc.
Top Answer: The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API.
Top Answer: The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way.
Top Answer: Whatever the price is, it's worth it.
Top Answer: We are looking for another solution that is less expensive. There is room for improvement. The live and portal monitoring needs improvement.
Ranking
Views
1,673
Comparisons
791
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
495
Avg. Rating
8.0
Views
32,254
Comparisons
23,821
Reviews
27
Average Words per Review
529
Avg. Rating
8.2
Popular Comparisons
Compared 43% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQWebSphere MQ
Learn
Aurea
IBM
Overview

CX Messenger lets your technology keep pace with your business. Aurea’s industry leading Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) lets you adapt and change your infrastructure with plug-and-play speed and ease.

    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 Aurea CX Messenger
Learn more about IBM MQ
Sample Customers
Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom MortgageDeutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company40%
K 12 Educational Company Or School9%
Venture Capital & Private Equity Firm7%
Retailer7%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm36%
Retailer12%
Insurance Company12%
Healthcare Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company39%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm9%
Media Company6%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business6%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise85%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business3%
Midsize Enterprise5%
Large Enterprise92%
Aurea CX Messenger is ranked 5th in Business Activity Monitoring with 1 review while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 28 reviews. Aurea CX Messenger is rated 8.0, while IBM MQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aurea CX Messenger writes "Excellent stability, capable of scaling, and good at supporting security particulars". 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". Aurea CX Messenger is most compared with Mule ESB, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, TIBCO Enterprise Message Service and Apache Kafka, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and TIBCO Enterprise Message Service.

See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors, best Message Oriented Middleware vendors, and best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.

We monitor all Business Activity Monitoring 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.