We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story
2018-06-07T15:32:00Z

What advice do you have for others considering IBM MQ?

71

If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering IBM MQ, what would you say?

How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?

ITCS user
Guest
4040 Answers

author avatar
Top 20Real User

We are an IBM partner. I'd rate the soluton at an eight out of ten. For the most part, I've been pretty happy with its capabilities.

2021-10-12T11:40:52Z
author avatar
Real User

I rate IBM MQ seven out of 10. It's a good option for anything banking-related where you need secure communications. There are some other similar products out there, but I'm not about other servers. But I'm aware of our BME. So if you're doing banking or anything that requires secure channels, I would recommend IBM MQ.

2021-10-06T22:48:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I recommend this product and rate it a nine out of 10.

2021-08-06T10:54:24Z
author avatar
Real User

I recommend others use a more cloud-native approach to messaging. I rate IBM MQ a seven out of ten.

2021-07-17T13:32:10Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

If you want a robust enterprise application that you know is going to be around that you can trust and you are very comfortable with the concept that you are going to pay for that stability and robustness, then IBM MQ is the best choice. If you are on a lighter throughput or you do not need to worry about the robustness as much then Rabbit MQ could be the better choice. It is a fairly stable application, and it works very well but you do not have that industrialization and long-term code benefit that you receive from IBM WebSphere. If your use case and budget fit then this solution would be a great choice. We have used the application for a long time. I understand it, how it works and therefore I feel comfortable with it. From a pure usage standpoint, it is great. It will handle anything, but you have to be willing to understand that you are getting into something you cannot go backward on very easily. You cannot easily swap another suitable or similar application out without a lot of work involved. You have to be very careful what you are trying to accomplish with your software. I rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

2021-06-29T10:30:59Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

IBM MQ was the first product that I got introduced to when I started my journey with IBM. This is my 14th year in this industry, and I see that this application is still very much useful and applicable. So I always recommend IBM MQ, and this is one of the most popular IBM products. I would rate it at seven on a scale from one to ten.

2021-05-21T10:53:29Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

We're just a customer and an end-user. I'd recommend the solution to any organization. I'd rate it ten out of ten. It really provides everything we need.

2021-03-09T19:58:38Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would recommend this solution. However, there are some emerging competitors on the market that provide a competitive alternative. I rate IBM MQ a seven out of ten.

2021-03-04T16:32:54Z
author avatar
Real User

I would advise, if I was the person in charge, I would tell my architecture team, "Bring me three other MQ-type solutions and do a POC to see if we can get better performance, resiliency, and reliability at a lower cost." I guarantee there are solutions out there that can do just those three things. I rate IBM MQ a six out of ten.

2021-01-16T04:32:47Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would recommend this solution and suggest you start using it if you have the budget. It's very stable and robust. It's a proven technology, so no one needs to worry about that. It all relies on the budget, that where all of the problems are. People want to use open-source, and businesses do not have a budget. It's a good product to use. I would rate IBM MQ a nine out of ten.

2021-01-06T22:10:13Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would definitely recommend this solution, but it also depends on your needs and business case. I have been using IBM MQ for the last 14 years. I am very much used to it, and I like it. I have used other products too, such as RabbitMQ and Kafka, but not that much. I would rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

2020-12-01T18:39:41Z
author avatar
Top 20LeaderboardReal User

We're just a customer. We don't have any business affiliation with the organization. On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate this solution at a nine.

2020-11-11T15:00:03Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would recommend this solution for similar companies. I am very fond of IBM MQ because of the reliability and throughput part, at least on a single server. On the consumer and application side, RabbitMQ seems a bit easier to consume. It is a bit ahead in terms of the scale-out feature. I would rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

2020-11-03T15:42:22Z
author avatar
Real User

I'd recommend the solution. It's a very stable solution and very resilient. If there is not essential data that needs to be transported between services, then I would go for a RabbitMQ, because it's easier in style, and it's free to use. On top of that, you can have it to wrap around everything in a straightforward way. That said, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've used it for a number of years and it's always worked very well for us.

2020-07-05T09:37:59Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

My advice would be to rethink the cloud strategy. Make sure to have certain components that you can put into the cloud. Think about cloud-first properly so that it scales automatically. It knows how to work with some of the container services that are out there so that it scales better. It has some cloud components that are good but you still have quite a strong on-prem infrastructure to support it. It's quite a complete solution. They have modules and stuff that they acquire and may add on as features and modules, additional modules, which is a very complete solution. It's been expensive to keep going the way we're going. And the turnaround is a bit slow, slower than we want. The business is changing quite rapidly, being in retail so we need to pivot quite quickly. And so that's why we're looking at seriously moving towards the cloud where we can simplify some of our processes and actually even our maintenance in it and the way we operate. I would rate IBM MQ a seven out of ten.

2020-06-17T10:56:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

It's expandable but it will add costs that should be taken into consideration. I would rate it an eight out of ten. In the next release, I would like for there to be easier monitoring. The UI should be easier for non-technical users to set up appliances and servers.

2020-04-26T06:32:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

You must be careful in that it must fit what you want it to do. A few years ago, we had a silo approach where everybody had their own IBM MQ and their own application support with their own teams. That got out of control. In the last few years we realized that you need to be careful about the deployment model you're using. And you need to make sure it's used for the proper use cases. That's really the biggest lesson I've learned from using IBM MQ: You need to be very sure about what you want it to do. I would advise that you talk to someone who knows about the solution and who is not biased. Set up a call with someone like me to look at the solution before you decide to go down this path and, similarly, before you decide to throw it out. Talk to someone who has at least seven years of experience with it and who can give you an unbiased opinion about how it works, and then make up your mind. People have come to us and we have said, "Based on what you are doing, we don't think MQ is the best solution for you. You should be looking at other solutions." And other times, we'll tell them that this is the perfect solution. The way MQ works is very good from a messaging point of view. There is very little that needs improving. MQ is very flexible and very tunable. We use it to transport hundreds of thousands of messages every day with absolutely no problems. At the moment the solution is on-premise. But in the last two years, the bank has decided that it needs to go with the public cloud. So in the last two years, most of our development has gone towards decoupling MQ because a lot of the vendor applications were on the box where MQ was. We're working on the solution and decoupling everything so we can push toward the cloud itself. The solution's built-in connectors are more applicable to when we talk about cloud solutions. As for containerization, eventually we will go for it but, at the moment, we don't use it. It's difficult to work on a mainframe because of the way it's set up. But it's definitely something the guys will be using when we look at the Unix servers and other boxes. For deployment and maintenance we have a team of eight people. We have three people on the mainframe and another three to four people for the appliance. They work with each other as well. On the Unix solution, which includes Linux, AIX, etc., we have another team of four, but all these teams overlap. The average upgrade won't take less than two people, but on the Unix box, upgrades are straightforward and someone can do it on his own.

2020-03-30T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

If you have mission-critical applications that rely on an exchange of data, and the data is very valuable, then I would suggest using MQ. We have a team of people of 50 to 60 people using it, in middleware admin.

2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
author avatar
Real User

It's a good product but I think it's too costly. That's one disadvantage because there are already many open-source products, like RabbitMQ, Kafka, and ActiveMQ. If you really need a solid MQ solution then go with IBM MQ. If you don't need such a robust solution then you can go with any of the other solutions. I would rate IBM MQ at seven out of 10. It has less throughput.

2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

I would recommend it to other people. When somebody wants to do colocation with us, we force them to buy IBM MQ.

2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

If you use it for evaluation purposes, it's good but if you're using it for freeware, it's not so good. Multiple fault tolerance and partition tolerance are great. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
author avatar
ExpertTop 5Real User

We are happy with it. I would give it an eight (out of 10). We are not using containers.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Real User

Before joining this company I was mainly consulting for various companies in Germany, and I noticed the core problem was always that in projects where MQ was implemented, they were targeting too low on the management food chain. You need that to go as high as possible because it changes the whole paradigm, your ways of thinking. A lot of the implementations were bad because they were partially patching some problems at the bottom level. The whole strategy was never oriented to messaging. My suggestion would be to be aware of that. Go global from the start. Don't address things partially. There is a team of four people who supervise all MQ activities here. I would rate IBM MQ at 10 out of 10, but ACE or Broker are between eight and nine, because of the lack of transparency.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Real User

If you have a lot of money then I would, of course, recommend IBM MQ.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I would recommend the solution, but it is very costly.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because of the pricing.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

This is a good product if you are looking for 100 percent stability and reliability, as opposed to implementing an open source solution. I would rate the product as a seven (out of 10).

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

My advice to someone who is looking into using IBM MQ would depend on their budget, the application criticality, etc. If applications are less critical, you can go with open-source products. Apache Kafka is growing quickly. People are using it on almost every project. The future will be Apache Kafka only and there might be some RabbitMQ use as well. But I see that Kafka is gaining the most. IBM MQ won’t support large streams of data but Kafka will support large streams of data. For example, for Big Data projects, will only go with Kafka.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would rate the product as a seven (out of 10).

2020-03-26T07:31:00Z
author avatar
Consultant

If you're looking for stability I would recommend using IBM MQ. But people, these days, are starting to work with Kafka, which is an open system. I don't have enough knowledge about Kafka to comment on it. I just work with MQ.

2020-03-26T07:31:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

If you want high availability with little maintenance, choose this solution. We don't use containers yet. I would rate the solution as a nine (out of 10) because it is not perfect.

2020-03-26T07:31:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

I would tell people to use this, except that the pricing and support costs are too high. I would rate MQ at eight out of 10.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

I would recommend it. If you're looking for a traditional queuing system, IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team. It depends on the number of instances, of course. But MQ is not difficult to support. It's mostly to solve communication issues for applications and to determine what type of communication you prefer: the traditional MQ or via JMS, where you have to put it into the headers. But if you pass it, it is very stable after that and has very good performance.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Real User

Apart from IBM MQ, we are using IBM Integration processor. We are pretty satisfied with the product. I would strongly recommend the solution, depending on the elements and architecture you're using. If you want to keep your data safe, I would definitely recommend using IBM MQ. We are satisfied with the service provided by IBM MQ. We don't have any issues. I would rate it at 10 out 10. It's the best.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Consultant

The best advice I can give is that it provides stability and performance and there's no loss of data. That is most important for our customers. The data will never be lost. It is used by large enterprises.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Reseller

I would definitely recommend IBM MQ to other people who are looking to implement this solution. They are going in the right direction. Everything is really in place and can be fully obtained. For me, the solution is a perfect product. I would rate this solution overall as a nine (out of 10).

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 20LeaderboardReal User

Overall, MQ is good, capability-wise. You still need a messaging platform and MQ is quite a reliable messaging platform. I have not seen hiccups using MQ across multiple environments in the bank. I have been using it since 2006 and I have never experienced any issues with the product itself. The guidelines of the product, the way it is used, the way things are done, are pretty self-explanatory. There are multiple blogs/ online helps available and there is a lot of help available from experts around the world. Have a look at the features. If they complement the requirements you have, go ahead with it. If you are very technical and want to understand more about the open-source tools and features, that may require a notable learning curve. The product has been around for a long time. It's probably time to see what MQ is going to add to its features. We have not started using IBM Cloud Pak with Red Hat OpenShift yet. We are also looking at using containerization but probably it may take some time.

2020-03-25T07:03:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

For the most part, this solution serves our purpose. It is not difficult to manage and the only challenges we have really had were to deal with some of the messages manually. My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider costs first. It is expensive and you have to ask what value you are going to get from it. You need to consider factors like how many messages you are sending per day. If your budget is sufficient then IBM MQ is your choice, otherwise, you should look into a cheaper option. Also, if stability is the most important thing to you then IBM MQ is the choice that you want to make. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

2020-03-22T08:19:00Z
author avatar
Real User

We also considered Apache Kafka as a solution. The main difference is that Kafka is an open-source platform.

2018-10-02T19:04:00Z
author avatar
User

IBM MQ is one of the oldest, most underrated products in history.

2018-06-07T15:32:00Z
Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2021.
552,305 professionals have used our research since 2012.