We performed a comparison between Avada Software Infrared360 and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, TIBCO, Aurea and others in Business Activity Monitoring."Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"IBM MQ's flexibility has sped up our active communication."
"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."
"Reliable messaging and throughput are the most valuable."
"It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters."
"The solution is easy to understand and even medium developers can easily start using it."
"Offers good performance as well as scalability and stability."
"The message queue and the integration with any development platform/language, i.e., NET and Java, are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"At a recent conference, I went to a presentation that had the latest version and it has amazing stuff that's coming out. So, I am excited to use those, specifically surrounding the web console and the fact that it's API integrated."
"Presenting and maybe having some different options for different user experiences based on the administrative duties that you have to do as an app manager or configure the server or security would be an improvement."
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"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."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"The product does not allow users to access data from API or external networks since it can only be used in a closed network, making it an area where improvements are required."
Earn 20 points
Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 6th in Business Activity Monitoring while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 158 reviews. Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". 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". Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with Dynatrace, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Redis.
See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors and best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) 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.
