IBM WebSphere Message Broker Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering IBM, Software AG, MuleSoft, and other competitors of IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Updated: June 2021.
512,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of IBM WebSphere Message Broker competitors and alternatives

Dan Marin
Branch Technical Manager at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Light, with an easy initial setup and a good set of features

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution is much lighter as an application server than other solutions that we used before. We used IBM Workshare Application Server and Oracle WebLogic. They are heavy application servers. JBoss is lighter. It starts faster and iterates its application fast. It's much, much faster than the competition."
  • "IBM offered JAVA profiling, which is something I used often and I wish that JBoss had something similar."

What other advice do I have?

We are using JBoss, however, we don't use the real business process management tool. We are in the prospecting phase at this moment. We are investigating a lighter BFM solution and going open-source as much as possible. We would definitely want commercial support at some point due to the fact that when we are going to sell the solution to our clients, we don't want to rely only on opening tickets to the community and getting it solved only whenever we can find an answer that way. We definitely will be looking for a solution with commercial support, however, at the same time, to also needs to…
CK
Enterprise Architect, Mars Global Services at Mars Inc.
Real User
Top 10
Good pricing and great features, but not easy to use

What is our primary use case?

We use the solution for supply chain management between ERP systems and warehouse management systems. We use it with multiple external partners.

Pros and Cons

  • "The cost is pretty cheap, compared to what else is available in the market."
  • "The solution needs to improve it's security and its proactive notification of security issues."

What other advice do I have?

We're IBM customers. We don't have a business relationship with IBM. The solution is deployed on an underlying platform in the traditional MQ. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, however, it's not user friendly. That said, it works really well.
Ravi Gunda
Senior Architect at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Provides excellent connectivity but requires much better stability

What is our primary use case?

We primarily provide services using the Mule ESB. We use it to integrate multiple systems.

Pros and Cons

  • "The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
  • "The solution isn't as stable as we'd like it to be. There are some ongoing issues and therefore Mule has to provide frequent patches. Mule's core IP should be more stable overall."

What other advice do I have?

We're partners of MuleSoft. We provide the solution's service to our clients. The solution would be useful for large organizations. If there are more than three or four systems, and if there is an expansion, it would work best. Small or medium enterprises with two or three systems, may find the solution a little bit unorganized. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. If the stability were more reliable, I'd rate it higher.
Get our free report covering IBM, Software AG, MuleSoft, and other competitors of IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Updated: June 2021.
512,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.