We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat AMQ 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."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."
"I haven't seen any issues with respect to the message loss."
"It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem."
"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."
"The solution is fast with end data compared to other messaging tools."
"We use our routing feature when the request is coming from the business application. The request goes to the distributive side and it is routed to the right claim instance."
"Setting up MQ is easy. We had a "grow as you go" implementation strategy. We started with a single channel and progressed to multiple queues and channels depending on the systems and integrations with other systems. It was a gradual deployment and expansion as we grew the services interacting with the core system using MQ."
"I appreciate the level of control we have over queue managers, queues, and the messaging itself. That provides good security. So, the control and scalability of messaging are important to me."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"This product is well adopted on the OpenShift platform. For organizations like ours that use OpenShift for many of our products, this is a good feature."
"AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day."
"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."
"I can't say pricing is good."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
"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."
"They probably need to virtualize the MQ flow and allow us to design the MQ flow using the UI. It would also help to migrate to the cloud easily and implement AWS Lambda functions with minimum coding. If you have to code, then just with NodeJS or Java."
"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."
"The solution requires a lot of work to implement and maintain."
"It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
"There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 7 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat AMQ 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 Red Hat AMQ writes "A stable, open-source technology, with a convenient deployment". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Amazon SQS and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, IBM Event Streams and Amazon MQ. See our IBM MQ vs. Red Hat AMQ 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.
