We performed a comparison between IBM BPM and IBM WebSphere Message Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."By automating several tasks, we have already reduced a lot of work for the business."
"The solution has helped us automate business processes."
"Automating the whole workflow process to give our data steward the ability to take actions rapidly, and making sure we have all the data synced within the different platforms that we are using."
"It is efficient in reducing costs."
"With the Process Center, I can go to one place and view what all the environments are doing."
"Good user interface and good add option."
"IBM BPM's best features include document sharing, management document creation, widget and barcode creation, and integration."
"It provides a very robust environment to build an integration framework or workflow patterns that we have. A lot of changes or modifications have been made to this solution over the past few years. The features that they have added this time have helped developers like us to work on the developmental environment and leverage all the capabilities of the tool. This is what I like about this solution."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"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."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The user experience, while it has improved, should continue to improve."
"Needs better reporting. I do not think that we are fully taking advantage of what it already has yet."
"I would like to see a lot more case studies."
"Some of the features are not enough for my business. We need to build custom user management for the many end users affected by BPM."
"The solution can improve integration with SAP, CRM, and Salesforce, which is not capital-intensive."
"IBM BPM integrated with Spark UI and the UI is now much better, but they still need to improve the UI because competitors have predefined templates and other additional features. In these competitor's solutions, you are able to use the templates, map your data, and the form is ready to use. With this solution, you need to write a lot of code to have the same quality as the competitor's templates. It would be a benefit to make this platform more towards low-code or no-code."
"We had a weird problem that whenever the database would go down, even for a few seconds, it broke the connection. It would not come back up as it was supposed to. However, working with IBM, we were able to figure out a fix, then it came back up, even after an interruption of the database."
"UI is an area with a shortcoming that needs improvement."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"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."
IBM BPM is ranked 6th in Application Infrastructure with 105 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews. IBM BPM is rated 7.8, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM BPM writes "Offers good case management and its integration with process design but there's a learning curve". 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 BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Pega BPM, IBM Business Automation Workflow and Apache Airflow, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM BPM vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.
