Compare IBM MQ vs. Red Hat AMQ

IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 10 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 6th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review. IBM MQ is rated 9.0, while Red Hat AMQ is rated 4.0. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Helps integrate between applications, reduce rework, by reusing existing components". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat AMQ writes "Scalable to a point, but the product is not stable and technical support needs to be improved". IBM MQ is most compared with RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ and Apache Kafka, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka and RabbitMQ.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM MQ Logo
32,750 views|24,214 comparisons
Red Hat AMQ Logo
3,573 views|2,984 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Use Red Hat AMQ? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Pivotal, Apache and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: September 2019.
366,090 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API.It improves reliability and guarantees that messages are not lost.Reliable integration between MQ servers is the most valuable feature.Data integrity, reliability and security are valuable features that IBM MQ possesses.There is no dependency on the end party service's run status.We use queue managers/concentrators for message flow going upstream and downstream on applications with enterprise licenses.It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem.Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications.

Read more »

My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability.

Read more »

Cons
I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution.I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop.I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially.MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ.SonicMQ CAA (continuous availability architecture) functionality on auto failover and data persistence should be made available without a shared drive, as it exists in multi-instance queue managers.It could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign.the level of training as well as product marketing for this product are not that great. You rarely find a good training institute that provides training. Many of the architects in several organization are neither aware of the product nor interested in using it. IBM should provide good training on products like this.It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated.

Read more »

There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
To implement such an IBM solution, a company has to pay a lot in term of licensing and consultancy. A pricing model might be a better option.In terms of cost, IBM MQ is slightly on the higher side.IBM MQ appliance has pricing options, but they are costly.99.999 percent availability for less than a penny per message over the past 25 years. IBM MQ is the cheapest software in the IBM software portfolio, and it is one of the best.Pricing could be better, as with all IBM products. But their performance in production, along with security and scalability, will pay returns in the long run.I think the pricing is reasonable, especially with IIB as a part of it.

Read more »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
366,090 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
Views
32,750
Comparisons
24,214
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
227
Avg. Rating
9.0
Views
3,573
Comparisons
2,984
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
818
Avg. Rating
4.0
Top Comparisons
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 29% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 30% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Also Known As
WebSphere MQRed Hat JBoss A-MQ, Red Hat JBoss AMQ
Learn
IBM
Red Hat
Overview

    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).

Offer
Learn more about IBM MQ
Learn more about Red Hat AMQ
Sample Customers
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp CorporationE*TRADE, CERN, CenturyLink, AECOM, Sabre Holdings
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm30%
Insurance Company15%
Retailer14%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm23%
Software R&D Company16%
Retailer10%
Insurance Company9%
No Data Available
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business2%
Midsize Enterprise10%
Large Enterprise88%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise2%
Large Enterprise86%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Pivotal, Apache and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: September 2019.
366,090 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email