We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 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."We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"The solution has good integration."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"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."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"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."
"Stable and easy to handle in terms of hosting applications."
"It's convenient and barebone."
"The solution is quite stable."
"The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and performance."
"Its technical support is excellent."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"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."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"This solution needs better management UI."
"Its architecture needs improvement."
"Lacks some functional requirements."
"A graphic user interface can be added."
"It's hard to find out the root cause of errors."
More JBoss Enterprise Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is ranked 9th in Application Infrastructure with 5 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is rated 9.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of JBoss Enterprise Application Platform writes "A stable and scalable solution that provides excellent technical support with a good response time". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas JBoss Enterprise Application Platform is most compared with IBM WebSphere Application Server, Microsoft .NET Framework, Apache Web Server, IBM BPM and NGINX Plus. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 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.
