We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and WebLogic Suite 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."The solution has good integration."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"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 transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"WebLogic adds a lot of value to business and investments."
"The feature that I have found to be the most valuable is the ease of deployment."
"Scalability on the solution is great. It's very very easy to scale."
"The most valuable feature of WebLogic is it has excellent performance and stability compared to the previous solution we used."
"The solution is very scalable. It's easy to add processes even if you are new to the solution."
"The program is scalable."
"The product is reliable."
"It integrates well with other solutions."
"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."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"There are sometimes issues with clusters."
"I think the support could be much better."
"Support could be better. The expertise when we have some Oracle WebLogic issues and challenges is not there. The issues are not being addressed in time. This really needs to be improved going forward."
"The content search is not easy."
"Lacking a solution for smaller applications."
"This solution doesn't have connectors to other external applications."
"This solution would benefit from the inclusion of a ripple start function for clusters."
"Sometimes there are issues when we work on a VM because people use it to put all of their reports on it at the same time. Then I have to restart and rebuild the machine."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while WebLogic Suite is ranked 11th in Application Infrastructure with 31 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while WebLogic Suite is rated 8.2. 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 WebLogic Suite writes "Simple setup, reliable, and performs well". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas WebLogic Suite is most compared with Oracle SOA Suite, Microsoft .NET Framework, Oracle WebCenter, Apache Web Server and NGINX Plus. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. WebLogic Suite 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.