We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Microsoft .NET Framework 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."Straightforward development and deployment."
"The solution has good integration."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"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."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The .NET Framework is a very good framework. It does what I need it to do."
"Firstly, I appreciate the decision to use Microsoft .NET Framework. I find it to be an excellent language, with a history rooted in providing an alternative to Java, albeit with initial challenges. It is gaining popularity and may be voted the most desirable programming language. What I particularly like about .NET is its language efficiency. While C# is the primary language, the platform also supports others, catering to those inclined towards functional programming. Although I started with Shell, I'm still grasping the concept of functional programming. Despite initial reservations about object-oriented programming, I acknowledge its advantages. .NET is a safer option, and despite criticisms, it has evolved over the years. One notable aspect is .NET's transition to an open platform in recent years, distancing itself from being exclusive to Microsoft engineers. I appreciate the versatility of .NET, enabling code production for a wide range of platforms, presenting a strong competition to Java. It allows targeting practically any physical platform, showcasing its flexibility. These qualities contribute to my positive view of .NET, totaling thirteen aspects that I find appealing."
"The addition of generics to handle common functionality across types, and the more recent upgrade of the dataset to the Entity Framework, has cut development time drastically, while increasing quality and confidence between builds."
"When we talk about .NET development, we use Visual Studio IDE to create these things. In recent years, there have been a lot of improvements in Visual Studio 2022. It would be a daunting task to list all of the features that have benefited us, as it would require a lot of time and effort. However, there are definitely many improvements year after year in .NET development."
"The .NET framework is a mature platform that is very helpful and saves time during the software development process."
"The Windows Communication Foundation is the biggest advantage we get from the .NET Framework."
"The solution's technical support is very good...The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Given that it's cross-platform right now, where you can use it on Windows and Mac, that is the single most significant feature that has resulted in wider adoption of .NET."
"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."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The product’s reliability needs improvement."
"In my opinion, this solution can be improved by providing out-of-the-box support for different types of libraries."
"In the realm of Microsoft .NET Framework, particularly in the C# language, there have been significant developments that I find highly commendable. I am genuinely fascinated by the continuous evolution of the language, and staying abreast of the latest features in Azure is both challenging and enjoyable. Working with C# in Azure is particularly fantastic. I appreciate in .NET, as compared to Java, is the enforcement of types, providing a better experience in terms of technicalities. Additionally, the introduction of Roslyn in the past few years has brought about the concept of late .NET, which I find interesting and powerful. This allows for the transformation of symbolic code just before execution, eliminating the runtime decision-making process and enhancing efficiency. However, late .NET does come with a drawback – a delay in the last-minute computation when starting an executable. While some may find this less appealing in terms of instant responsiveness, especially in serverless cloud environments, the efficiency gained from executing strictly binary code is valuable. Despite potential drawbacks like the time required for activation, I view .NET favorably for its technical advancements and efficiency, especially in scenarios such as serverless cloud computing. It's essential to recognize the intricacies of how .NET processes code and the efficiency it brings, which some may overlook."
"The product is nearing its sunset, and we think that by 2028, we won't get support anymore"
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"Difficult to scale this product for large organizations."
"The pricing is a bit expensive."
".NET Is still heavy or dependant on other Microsoft libraries and frameworks."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. 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 Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, Apache Web Server, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform and Windows Process Activation Services. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Microsoft .NET Framework 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.
