We compared IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
IBM MQ is praised for its reliability, scalability, security, and seamless integration capabilities, with positive feedback on customer service, setup expenses, and licensing. On the other hand, VMware RabbitMQ is commended for its message queueing abilities, integration, scalability, and support. Areas for enhancement in IBM MQ include improvements in certain aspects, while VMware RabbitMQ users seek better documentation, UI, stability, performance, error handling, message routing, and clustering support.
Features: IBM MQ is valued for its reliability, scalability, security, and ease of integration. Users appreciate its ability to handle high volumes of messages without loss or delay and its robust encryption protocols. It seamlessly connects with different applications and platforms. On the other hand, VMware RabbitMQ excels in message queueing capabilities, seamless integration, scalability, and community support.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for IBM MQ received positive remarks, with users finding it reasonable and cost-effective. The setup costs were considered manageable, allowing swift implementation. In comparison, users expressed satisfaction with the affordable setup cost of VMware RabbitMQ and its flexible licensing options., IBM MQ users have praised its efficiency, communication integration, and streamlined workflows. The product is reliable, scalable, and easy to use, resulting in cost savings and increased productivity. On the other hand, users of VMware RabbitMQ have reported increased efficiency, seamless integration with existing infrastructure, and reduced downtime. The platform is praised for its scalability, reliability, extensive documentation, and strong community support.
Room for Improvement: IBM MQ product has received user feedback regarding areas that require enhancement, whereas VMware RabbitMQ has received feedback on areas including documentation, user interface, stability, performance, error handling, message routing, and support for clustering and scaling.
Deployment and customer support: The reviews for IBM MQ indicate that users mentioned different timeframes for establishing new tech solutions, with deployment taking three months and setup ranging from one week to one week. The reviews for VMware RabbitMQ also mention varying durations, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others mentioned a week for both. It is important to carefully evaluate the context in which these terms are used to determine if they refer to the same period or should be considered separately., IBM MQ's customer service is highly regarded for its promptness, effectiveness, and level of expertise. Users describe the support team as helpful, courteous, and professional. In comparison, VMware RabbitMQ's customer service is praised for its responsiveness, reliability, and efficient problem-solving abilities.
The summary above is based on 27 interviews we conducted recently with IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is transaction processing."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"I like the MQ's simplicity and rock-solid stability. I've never experienced a failure in two decades caused by the product itself. It has only failed due to human error."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"Encryption and the fact that we have not had any data loss issues so far have been very valuable features. IBM MQ is well encrypted so that we are well within our compliance and regulatory requirements, so that is a plus point as well."
"There are a lot of extensible options for security, i.e., various things you can do. It's pretty easy to navigate."
"The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
"Integrates between distributed systems: For example, it can help integrate processing between mainframe, client-server, web-based applications by integrating the messages, supporting Service Oriented Architecture."
"Simple and straightforward admin portals: Made it easy for users and worked out excellently for our requirements"
"It is easy to use. The addition of more queues and more services can be managed very easily."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it is open source. The licensing costs are really low and they are transparent."
"The product's feature of data transaction works fast."
"It can be configured to be a very fast message broker. I like the stability, the built-in admin tools and plugin architecture."
"Some of the most valuable features are publish and subscribe, fanout, and queues."
"We have been able to set up a messaging system that facilitates data integration between the software modules that we sell."
"Companies can scale the solution, so long as they have server room."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"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."
"It should support a wider range of protocols, not just a few specific ones. Many other products have broader protocol support, and IBM MQ is lagging in that area."
"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."
"I have used the support from IBM MQ. There is some room for improvement."
"There are many complications with IBM MQ servers."
"I would like to see message duplication included."
"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."
"I’d like this dashboard to use web sockets, so it would actually be in real time. It would slightly increase debugging, etc."
"The availability could be better."
"The next release should include some of the flexibility and features that Kafka offers."
"The support feature could benefit from some improvement in terms of accessibility and responsiveness."
"If you're outside IP address range, the clustering no longer has all the features which is problematic."
"The product has to improve the crisis management, especially in memory issues."
"I would like to see the performance of the administration portal improved and additional messaging protocols."
"Their implementation is quite tricky. It's not that easy to implement RabbitMQ as a cluster."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while VMware RabbitMQ is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 38 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while VMware RabbitMQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware RabbitMQ writes "A cloud solution for asynchronous call with easy configuration". IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, Red Hat AMQ, Amazon SQS and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas VMware RabbitMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker. See our IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ 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.