We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, IBM, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software."This product has good security."
"The solution is easy to understand and even medium developers can easily start using it."
"It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"Reliable messaging and throughput are the most valuable."
"IBM HQ's stability is great - we send six million messages a day, and we're very satisfied with HQ's ability to handle that volume."
"The solution is very stable."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."
"I don’t like legacy view of MQ."
"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."
"Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"I would like the ability to connect with some of the more recent offerings, such as API Connect; being able to publish our MQ endpoints, the queues, the messaging infrastructure as IT assets."
"The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM)."
"The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box."
"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."
"JBoss could add more automation."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is ranked 12th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is rated 8.0. 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 JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS writes "It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia". IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Amazon SQS, whereas Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is most compared with Apache Kafka.
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.
