We performed a comparison between IBM Event Streams and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."
"The stability has been good."
"The solution is fast with end data compared to other messaging tools."
"The solution is easy to understand and even medium developers can easily start using it."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is it has all the features necessary for contemporary messaging, not only for the financial industry but for any application."
"Reliability is the most valuable feature. MQ is used to support critical business applications."
"The thing that I like about MQ most is its reliability. It's one of those types of products that just works. You don't have to tinker around with it too much."
"There is no dependency on the end party service's run status."
"There are a lot of extensible options for security, i.e., various things you can do. It's pretty easy to navigate."
"It would be helpful if they could help us explain why they, as in, the customers, should use the product and the overall benefits."
"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."
"The product's interface needs improvement."
"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."
"While there is support for API, it's not like the modern API capabilities."
"If they could have some front-end monitoring tool that could be easily available for the team to use, that could be great."
"The main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now."
"In the next release, I would like for there to be easier monitoring. The UI should be easier for non-technical users to set up appliances and servers."
"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."
"It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."
"The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory."
IBM Event Streams is ranked 11th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. IBM Event Streams is rated 8.4, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Event Streams writes "Easy to use, stable, has a good interface, and the security is good". 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". IBM Event Streams is most compared with Apache Kafka and Red Hat AMQ, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ and Red Hat AMQ. See our IBM Event Streams vs. IBM MQ report.
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.