We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and IBM WebSphere Message Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The system integration layer is valuable because this enables an organization to create a single point where all the key organizational master data is held in different IT applications across different functions, that can be accessed and updated."
"Setting it up is fairly easy. If somebody has knowledge of the system, he or she will be able to do it fairly quickly."
"IBM BPM is both scalable and stable."
"With the tester coach wherein you can interact with the interface while you're designing the process."
"The functionality to design UI to be responsive and can run on multiple devices."
"One thing that I love about them is that they make it easier to integrate with other systems, especially with the use of smaller files."
"One of the most notable things is how you can develop use cases with the customers, internal customers, but directly within. The software process model that BPM supports is really exciting in that aspect."
"We like that it does not require a lot of hours to train our people."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The solution has good integration."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"We need process monitoring. It is somewhat complex to monitor all the processes which work."
"Process Server is no more available than new products out there, but in general IBM has a high cost and complex setup."
"We had a weird problem that whenever the database would go down, even for a few seconds, it broke the connection. It would not come back up as it was supposed to. However, working with IBM, we were able to figure out a fix, then it came back up, even after an interruption of the database."
"I would like IBM to consider including AI-enabled process mining, robotic process automation, and very good OCR capabilities from the computer vision side."
"We thought there might have been a little more discussion early on about, "Hey, if you're doing this, set it up this way," or some best practices or some guidance that we didn't get."
"I would like it more documentation during the design phase."
"UI is an area with a shortcoming that needs improvement."
"I hope IBM uses something from IBM Content Navigator to make the interface easier to navigate."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"It is currently a weighty product."
IBM BPM is ranked 6th in Application Infrastructure with 105 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". IBM BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM BPM vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.
