We performed a comparison between IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM WebSphere Message Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is straightforward and for large organizations, it functions well."
"I like that it is very stable, and we never experience any downtime."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It is easy to use, easy to install, and it's resilient for high availability."
"Support for PCA and non-PCA services is valuable."
"The solution is robust."
"The solution is scalable, our customers are mostly South African banks and they handle mostly transactions with this solution."
"It's high-speed and it can be remotely administered via an API."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The solution has good integration."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"They should add features to manage API integrations."
"Additional documentation needs to be provided for complex automations."
"The solution requires a lot of training manuals in order to get to know it better and to be able to use it effectively."
"The initial setup isn't so easy, you need who has experience working with the solution to help."
"They should improve the solution's clustering features."
"I would like the tool to improve its training."
"Some pre-packaged connectors for integration with various applications, such as SaaS offerings, would be a useful addition."
"Making it more user-friendly would be an improvement."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
IBM DataPower Gateway is ranked 6th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 26 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews. IBM DataPower Gateway is rated 8.4, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM DataPower Gateway writes "Easy to use, plenty of functionality, but expensive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". IBM DataPower Gateway is most compared with IBM API Connect, Apigee, Microsoft Azure API Management, Mule ESB and MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM DataPower Gateway vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors and best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.
