Sunil SahooManager at a financial services firm
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API."
"The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day."
"It is stable, reliable, and scalable."
"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."
"It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters."
"IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team."
"The MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity."
"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."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"This combination of two products, Apache Kafka and ActiveMQ, offers two ways of dealing with messaging. It's wonderful due to the fact that sometimes it's much preferable to use Kafka and sometimes it's Active MQ. We can use both of them in our arsenal."
"I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution."
"If they could come up with monitoring dashboards that would be good. We are using external monitoring tools, apart from our IBM MQ, to monitor IBM MQ. If we could get monitoring tools or dashboards to keep everything simple for the user to understand, that would be good."
"I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka."
"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."
"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."
"In terms of volume, it is not able to handle a huge volume. We also have limitations of queues related to IBM MQ. We often need to handle a very big volume, but currently we do have limitations. If those kinds of limitations could be relaxed, it would help us to work better."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
"AMQ is not offered as a separate offering anymore. It comes only as a part of the Red Hat Integration package. Therefore, if you would like to purchase a specific product, you can't do that."
"The price is high."
"There is a different platform price between Windows, z/OS, and iSeries."
"IBM products, in general, have high licensing costs and support costs are too high."
"Most of our customers are quite happy with the solution but they have an issue with the cost. They want to move to cheaper solutions."
"It is a very expensive product compared to the open source products in the market."
"It would be a 10 out of 10 if it wasn't so expensive."
"It's a very expensive product."
"IBM MQ is expensive and they charge based on the CPU."
Earn 20 points
IBM MQ provides the universal messaging backbone for service-oriented architecture (SOA) connectivity. It connects virtually any commercial IT system, whether on premise, in the cloud, or a mixture. For more than 20 years IBM has led the market in messaging middleware and more than 10,000 businesses across all geographies and industries rely on IBM MQ.
Visit for your trial here.
To respond to business demands quickly and efficiently, you need a way to integrate the applications and data spread across your enterprise. Red Hat JBoss A-MQ—based on the Apache ActiveMQ open source project—is a flexible, high-performance messaging platform that delivers information reliably, enabling real-time integration and connecting the Internet of Things (IoT).
IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 35 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 2 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.2, while Red Hat AMQ is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "We don't lose messages in transit and we can store messages and forward them when required". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat AMQ writes "Scales well and is very stable, with great technical support on offer". IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and Real-Time Innovations DDS, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, IBM Event Streams and Amazon MQ.
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.