We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The solution is the easiest way to publish applications which have been designed by older development tools."
"This is definitely a stable solution."
"The solution is easy to use, easy to maintain and isn't too technical."
"The graphical user interface makes it easy for users to configure the sites."
"The solution integrates well with most Microsoft products."
"The solution is very easy to use and offers a quick deployment."
"The solution is easy to use and connects with Microsoft."
"What I like the most is that it is easy to use."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The scalability depends on how you have set it up. If you're running IIS on a single server, it might not be as capable as if you are on many in a cluster or with load balancing and so on."
"The areas of this solution that need improvement are monitoring, debugging, and troubleshooting."
"The solution should improve the cluster environment and load balancing."
"This solution needs to be easier for cases where you want to have an IIS cluster."
"If Microsoft IIS could work well with AppOptics or things like PHP, Python, and other custom languages that run on the webserver, it would be ideal. I think there are cases where people need to use Apache instead of IIS when IIS doesn't work well with other web languages."
"We've never had any issues with the solution, but it's still nice to have overall improvements on it. It could be easier and faster to use, for example."
"The documentation is not very detailed. They need to improve it and add to it. They should ensure there are lots of visuals to help users better understand the solution."
"In the next release, I would like to see better integration between the cloud environment and the on-premises environment."
"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."
"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."
"This product is more expensive than competing products."
"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."
"This solution comes included with Windows Server."
"The price of the cloud system is a bit high."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 7th in Application Infrastructure with 5 reviews while IIS is ranked 3rd in Application Infrastructure with 12 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while IIS is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IIS writes "The interface, simplicity, and ease of management lend flexibility to this configurable solution". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM BPM and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas IIS is most compared with NGINX Plus, Tomcat, Apache Web Server, Oracle WebLogic Server and Oracle Fusion Middleware. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. IIS 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.