Anonymous UserTechnical Enterprise Architect at a tech services company
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 most valuable features are the monitoring, ease of use, and easy to understand development GUI."
"TIBCO has the platform in terms of speed and ease of use."
"The solution is very stable."
"The most valuable feature is that it is a service-oriented architecture, SOA-based."
"The most attractive and beneficial feature is the ease of development."
"It is easy to develop. It has a very wide range of features. The older versions are very stable, and there are no issues with the product."
"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."
"Migration to cloud solutions or products should be made convenient, transparent, and easily understandable."
"In the next release, there should be improvements made to the API manager."
"If TIBCO could be able to sort the size of their base image in the Container edition, it would be really marvelous. Right now it's around 299 MB. We'd really want it to reduce to a few MBs."
"Our version does not have cloud capabilities."
"The stability of their latest version is not on par with their classic version 5.X."
"The intermediate version that we are using has stability issues. These stability issues should be resolved, but it seems like TIBCO is not focusing on resolving these issues. The resolution timelines are quite high even for high-priority incidents. Its price should be lower. Its licensing cost is considerably high as compared to other ESBs."
"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."
"The licensing cost is a challenge for quite a few customers."
"The price is on the higher side. For the same price, if I go to the previous version, I would have got a lot more capacity with similar kinds of features."
"Its licensing cost is considerably high as compared to other ESBs."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 7th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 5 reviews while TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus is ranked 5th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 6 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus is rated 8.8. 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 TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus writes "Easy to use, performs well, and it's the best platform in terms of speed". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM BPM and Oracle SOA Suite, whereas TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Red Hat Fuse, Oracle Service Bus and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. TIBCO ActiveMatrix 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.