We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Zenoss Cloud 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."Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"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."
"The solution has good integration."
"What I like most about Zenoss Service Dynamics is that it monitors the devices and gives close to real-time alerts. For example, in case the device is not available, Zenoss Service Dynamics generates an alert so my team can resolve the issue."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible discovery mechanism."
"They have also accommodated many state-of-the-art technologies like Docker and ZooKeeper."
"It's easy to use."
"The product offers good documentation that helps with initial training."
"The custom built integration is one of the most valuable features because you can see all the especially critical items."
"Its Docker Container concept is mind blowing. It is the first monitoring tool which comes with Docker features."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"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."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The inclusion of a feature to show a graphical view of the network would be a helpful improvement."
"Now it is stable, but they should design threshold parameters in percentage instead of raw values."
"As Zenoss Service Dynamics is more for network-centric devices and you want to monitor, for example, a server, its services, IP addresses, and interfaces, if it's a network and you're going to monitor multiple items, you'll be charged multiple times. This is what Zenoss Service Dynamics needs to improve to make sure that customers pay just one fee to monitor the entire server. What I'd like to see in Zenoss Service Dynamics in the future is a public cloud monitoring feature, particularly for the Azure public cloud. Another additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of the solution is integration with the Azure public cloud because I know that there are some services from Azure that Zenoss Service Dynamics is currently unable to monitor."
"There is room for improvement with the administrative part. They introduced Control Center to manage things in Zenoss 5. The services that Zenoss provides remained the same, but the administrative part, since they introduced Docker, etc., has become a little complex"
"It would be ideal if the product offered sound alerts."
"There was a problem with Zenoss and storage monitoring."
"The AI aspect needs to improve."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Zenoss Cloud is ranked 20th in Application Infrastructure with 8 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Zenoss Cloud 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 Zenoss Cloud writes "Generates close to real-time alerts so users can resolve issues, but needs more integration and public cloud monitoring features". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Zenoss Cloud is most compared with Zabbix, Nagios XI, ServiceNow IT Operations Management, Splunk Enterprise Security and ScienceLogic. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Zenoss Cloud 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.
