IBM WebSphere Message Broker Other Advice

It's a good solution but it's questionable now that microservers have come into it. I can't really comment on whether I would recommend this solution for those who are looking to implement this solution, because everyone has their own use case.

I would rate IBM WebSphere Message Broker an eight out of ten. I had a good experience with this solution, and have not had any issues that we could not fix or handle.

I think it's a reasonably good solution but I also believe it has some good competitors like MuleSoft which has good incubation points and has a cloud solution. ESB is still in the data centers, not the extenders, and they're mostly on a non-cloud based platform. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

This is a good solution and when I have a customer that needs something with this capability, it is the first option that I suggest to them.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

At this point, I only use twenty to thirty percent of the facilities or services that are offered by this tool. For the main purpose of the suite, I have no specific concerns about it.

This is a good product, but there are still some challenges.

If I were rating Oracle then I would give it a six out of ten.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My advice to anybody who is looking at WebSphere Message Broker is to fully consider their use case. In general, I suggest looking for another product because there are better options available in terms of both cost and usability.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.