We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and SAP NetWeaver BPM [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, F5, Apache and others in Application Infrastructure."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."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"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."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"My primary use case for this solution is to display the process in a graphical representation."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"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."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"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."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"The odata can be improved. It represents to users flexible process that can manage and monitor their own business process."
Earn 20 points
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while SAP NetWeaver BPM [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Application Infrastructure. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while SAP NetWeaver BPM [EOL] is rated 6.6. 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 SAP NetWeaver BPM [EOL] writes "Why you should choose SAP BPM as process management discipline?". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas SAP NetWeaver BPM [EOL] is most compared with .
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.
