We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Oracle Service Bus 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."Straightforward development and deployment."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The solution has good integration."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Overall it is a pretty good solution."
"We've been pleased with the level of technical support."
"What I found most valuable in Oracle Service Bus is its time to market. It's excellent."
"The stability is consistently high, with only one notable issue encountered."
"Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters."
"It was very good at supporting high transactions, up to 300 transactions per second."
"Service Bus is good at routing the transformation."
"The communication between applications is already defined, which means that you don't have to redefine your service infrastructure at the lower level."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"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."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need 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."
"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 initial setup is likely complex for many organizations."
"It would be ideal if they could optimize it a bit."
"Lacks sufficient cloud compatibility."
"This solution would benefit from having more cloud-based adapters."
"Security features can be improved to better protect the server."
"There are some loopholes in service and support."
"There is significant room for improvement in the monitoring capabilities."
"It needs to support more adapters, because the integration points keep changing and new things keep coming up. It also needs to be more scalable."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Oracle Service Bus is ranked 5th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 25 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Oracle Service Bus is rated 7.8. 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 Oracle Service Bus writes "Enables us to do a lot of aggregation and routing, but API response can be a problem if the payload is heavy". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IIS, whereas Oracle Service Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Oracle Service Bus report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.
