Anonymous UserSenior Technical Lead 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."
"The solution has really cool features to use. Its management console is excellent. You can utilize plugins to view the performance of the whole service on one network."
"The security is great."
"The most valuable feature is that it's really customizable."
"Some of the most valuable features are publish and subscribe, fanout, and queues."
"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."
"I was struggling with installing a few things. It would be good if was somewhat similar to RedHat. There should be more documentation regarding installation troubleshooting."
"Their implementation is quite tricky. It's not that easy to implement RabbitMQ as a cluster."
"When you have complex tasks, RabbitMQ is hard to use."
"They should improve on the ability to scale your queues in a very simple and elegant way with the same power that they have would be great."
"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."
"are using the open-source version, which can be used free of cost."
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.
IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 34 reviews while VMware RabbitMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 4 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.2, while VMware RabbitMQ is rated 8.0. 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 VMware RabbitMQ writes "Beneficial features, simple install, highly scalable, and simple "pub/sub" model". IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker, Anypoint MQ and TIBCO Enterprise Message Service, whereas VMware RabbitMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, PubSub+ Event Broker, Red Hat AMQ and Anypoint MQ. 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.