Compare IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ

IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 20 reviews while VMware RabbitMQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 4 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.8, while VMware RabbitMQ is rated 7.6. 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 VMware RabbitMQ writes "One crucial feature was guaranteed messaging. There are idiosyncrasies in the Windows version". IBM MQ is most compared with VMware RabbitMQ, ActiveMQ and Apache Kafka, whereas VMware RabbitMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, IBM MQ and Apache Kafka. See our IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM MQ Logo
34,009 views|25,598 comparisons
VMware RabbitMQ Logo
37,685 views|29,266 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,401 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
I haven't seen any severe issues related to it. Most of the time it's running. That is the advantage of IBM MQ.The first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage.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 MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity.The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server.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.RabbitMQ and Kafka require more steps for setup than IBM MQ. Installation of the IBM product is very simple.It's highly scalable. It provides various ways to establish high availability and workloads. E.g., you can spread workloads inside of your clusters.

Read more »

The security is great.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.We have been able to set up a messaging system that facilitates data integration between the software modules that we sell.

Read more »

Cons
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.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.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.The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory.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.You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000.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.

Read more »

Their implementation is quite tricky. It's not that easy to implement RabbitMQ as a cluster.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.RabbitMQ is clearly better supported on Linux than it is on Windows. There are idiosyncrasies in the Windows version that are not there on Linux.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
IBM products, in general, have high licensing costs and support costs are too high.IBM MQ is expensive and they charge based on the CPU.There is a different platform price between Windows, z/OS, and iSeries.Our costs haven't increased but they also have not improved.The price is high.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.

Read more »

This is an open source solution.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
407,401 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Answers from the Community
Miriam Tover
author avatarfjb_saper
Real User

The biggest difference is the number of platforms supported. I have never heard of RabbitMQ running on ZOS (mind you ZOS and not z/Linux).
The same way I don't know that the AS400 platform would support RabbitMQ. Also, I don't think RabbitMQ has the same ease of use and set up that IBM MQ has.

Next thing to consider is support. Think about how long it will take to get support for RabbitMQ and a Fix vs the time to get support from IBM. Finally and not the least, you will also want to compare the features (like assured delivery).

Ranking
Views
34,009
Comparisons
25,598
Reviews
14
Average Words per Review
557
Avg. Rating
8.9
Views
37,685
Comparisons
29,266
Reviews
4
Average Words per Review
381
Avg. Rating
7.5
Top Comparisons
Compared 35% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 48% of the time.
Compared 31% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Also Known As
WebSphere MQRabbitMQ by Pivotal, Rabbit, RabbitMQ
Learn
IBM
VMware
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.

  • RabbitMQ is the most popular open source message broker, with more than 35,000 production deployments world-wide. RabbitMQ is lightweight and easy to deploy on premises and in the cloud and runs on all major operating systems. It supports most developer platforms, multiple messaging protocols and can be deployed in distributed and federated configurations to meet high-scale, high-availability requirements.
Offer
Learn more about IBM MQ
Learn more about VMware RabbitMQ
Sample Customers
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Information Not Available
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm34%
Insurance Company13%
Retailer12%
Healthcare Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company36%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm9%
Retailer7%
REVIEWERS
University18%
Software R&D Company9%
Comms Service Provider9%
Security Firm9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company37%
Comms Service Provider17%
Insurance Company6%
Financial Services Firm6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business6%
Midsize Enterprise8%
Large Enterprise87%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business10%
Large Enterprise90%
REVIEWERS
Small Business39%
Midsize Enterprise16%
Large Enterprise45%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM MQ vs. VMware RabbitMQ and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,401 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.