IBM WebSphere Message Broker Reviews

My primary use case of this solution is as an application server as well as everything else related to the whole suite from IBM.

The most valuable features are the product's straightforward development and deployment, and its nice graphical user interface.

When choreography is necessary, the product doesn't work. IBM has to take a different approach to maintain the software as a service solution. The price could also be lowered.

I've been using this solution for about seventeen years.

The scalability depends on how you build it, but it's easy to scale if you do it right.

The tech support is good, I have had no issues with it.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward, depending on how knowledgeable the person in charge is.

This product is expensive.

If you have access to resources, it's not hard to learn to use this product. However, today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM. I would rate this solution as five out of ten.

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. 

Message Broker has a broad set of application adapters that are used to integrate a very large list of applications.

Performance-wise, this solution is really stable and reliable.

The size of the container used in the deployment is still a bite large and I think it should be improved and become lighter.

It would be useful to make container deployment easier .

I have been working with IBM WebSphere Message Broker for the past seven(7) years.

This is a very reliable and stable solution that is used for a very large number of transactions. It has been on the market for about 20 years, so it is mature.

This product is scalable.

I have been in contact with technical support and I find them to be good. Sometimes when I raise a ticket, it is just to get extra support to provide guidance for a feature that has been improved or discontinued.

Given the stability of this product, it is rare that one opens a support case because of a defect in the code.

I am familiar with some other solutions that have a fancier toolkit and are easy to use, but with IBM, it is more stable, reliable, and trusted. At the same time, it is more expensive than other products on the market.

The most recent version is really easy to install and configure, which will take about one day. The deployment is a simple drag-and-drop, so deploying it will take two days at the maximum.

This product is more expensive than competing products.

We compare other options for our customers and we look at the pros and cons of each solution. Normally, customers decide based on their budget, the features, and the expected workload. In most cases, I recommend IBM.

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.

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. 

I mostly like the integration which is the component feature.

I haven't completely tested the solution. I have a CMM BPM background, and recently moved to work on this so I'm only now getting exposure in this particular area. It's difficult to comment at this early stage but I find the installation configuration is quite difficult compared to other solutions. The other issue is that I don't have cloud, and we can't get any cloud where IBM is moving. I'm not sure whether we can move this application to the Azure or AWS cloud solutions. It's a major challenge and we still haven't had any kind of official documentation from IBM as to how we can move forward on that. 

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

We do sometimes get bugs and hardware glitches that require a memory reboot but overall, in comparison to other solutions specific to the banking domain, this product is quite good. It's able to handle a lot of applications and has a high capacity level. 

The scalability is fine. We don't just have the direct users, but there are a lot of applications and things sitting on the ESB, and a lot of integration points. We probably have more than a thousand people using the function user ID, and the personal user ID.

IBM technical support is pretty good. Sometimes it's difficult to simulate issues, or reproduce the issue to make them understand the problem. It can sometimes also take quite a while to resolve an issue. Overall, we are happy with the IBM support.

The solution was already set up when I joined the team, but we still get requests regarding all the applications sitting on ESB which is a bit of challenge. Otherwise things are fine. 

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.