IBM WebSphere Message Broker Overview

IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the #7 ranked solution in our list of top ESB tools. It is most often compared to IBM Integration Bus: IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs IBM Integration Bus

What is IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
WebSphere Message Broker is an enterprise service bus (ESB) providing connectivity and universal data transformation for service-oriented architecture (SOA) and non-SOA environments. It allows businesses of any size to eliminate point-to-point connections and batch processing regardless of platform, protocol or data format.

IBM WebSphere Message Broker is also known as WebSphere Message Broker.

Buyer's Guide

Download the ESB Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: June 2021

IBM WebSphere Message Broker Customers
WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin Tire
IBM WebSphere Message Broker Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about IBM WebSphere Message Broker pricing:
  • "I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."
  • "This product is more expensive than competing products."
  • "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."

Filter Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
MM
Integration Specialist at Hudson's Bay
Real User
Top 10
Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ

What is our primary use case?

We had different use cases such as point-to-point, and public subscribers. We have some APIs building business Message Broker and we have divisions such as the legacy mainframe. We pretty much use everything. Most of the integration is done with Message Broker.

Pros and Cons

  • "Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
  • "Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."

What other advice do I have?

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.
Shubhashis Panda
Solution Designer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 10
Integration is a good component feature; very scalable

What is our primary use case?

I'm part of the company middleware, and we are managing things with Spheres, IHS, and also HU and EAZ. I've just become involved in trying to sort out a roadmap to migrate the EAZ from IAB to ACS Enterprise App Connect, that's the latest IBM technology. I'm a solution designer and we are partners of IBM.

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution has good integration."
  • "The installation configuration is quite difficult."

What other advice do I have?

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.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, MuleSoft, Software AG and others in ESB. Updated: June 2021.
511,607 professionals have used our research since 2012.
AbdelMonem Azaz
Integration Architect/Practice Manager at Saudi Business Machines - SBM
Real User
Mature, reliable, and performance-wise it is good

What is our primary use case?

We are system integrator and solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients. It comes with a development tool and we use it to develop integration flows. I am normally working with financial companies when using this solution. They use it for communication between heterogeneous applications at the backend.

Pros and Cons

  • "Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
  • "The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

What other advice do I have?

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.
Mohamed Osman
Independent Consultant - IT Technician Level 4 / Projects Technician at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
Good performance, easy to use, and has support for many backend interfaces

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution to assist our customers with their core business challenges. The main purpose of this tool is to connect several applications together. My experience is based on two medium-sized projects that I have completed using this solution. We have an on-premises deployment, as do many SMB in the Middle East.

Pros and Cons

  • "It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
  • "The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."

What other advice do I have?

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.
AR
Enterprise Architect at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
The basic features work well, but it is expensive and the technical support is slow

What is our primary use case?

We have a large number of use cases for this product. It is built into the underlying infrastructure for most of our applications.

Pros and Cons

  • "We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
  • "Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

What other advice do I have?

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.