We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Compare Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM MQ

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Aurea CX Messenger Logo
914 views|525 comparisons
IBM MQ Logo
23,395 views|17,208 comparisons
Top Review
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 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 haven't seen any severe issues related to it. Most of the time it's running. That is the advantage of IBM MQ."

More IBM MQ Pros »

Cons
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."

More Aurea CX Messenger Cons »

"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.""The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box."

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.
542,721 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Top Answer: Offers good performance as well as scalability and stability.
Top Answer: I'd very much like to see more integration in the monitoring tools.
Ranking
Views
914
Comparisons
525
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
495
Rating
8.0
Views
23,395
Comparisons
17,208
Reviews
37
Average Words per Review
533
Rating
8.1
Comparisons
Also Known As
CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
WebSphere MQ
Learn More
Aurea
Video Not Available
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 Mortgage
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company35%
Comms Service Provider11%
Manufacturing Company11%
Retailer6%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm37%
Retailer12%
Insurance Company11%
Transportation Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company27%
Financial Services Firm22%
Comms Service Provider14%
Insurance Company5%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business6%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise85%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business5%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise86%

Aurea CX Messenger is ranked 4th in Business Activity Monitoring with 1 review while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 41 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, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ and TIBCO Enterprise Message Service, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Avada Software Infrared360.

See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors, best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) 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.