We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Software AG Apama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, IBM, VMware and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software."The system integration is good."
"Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
"The solution is very stable."
"The MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity."
"I have found that the solution scales well."
"IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."
"The scalability of IBM MQ is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the ability that it provides its users to handle different kinds of rules."
"While there is support for API, it's not like the modern API capabilities."
"IBM MQ is not very user-friendly."
"It should support a wider range of protocols, not just a few specific ones. Many other products have broader protocol support, and IBM MQ is lagging in that area."
"MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ."
"I would like the ability to connect with some of the more recent offerings, such as API Connect; being able to publish our MQ endpoints, the queues, the messaging infrastructure as IT assets."
"We would like to see the IBM technical support team extend their hand to providing support for other cloud vendors like Azure, Google Cloud, and AWS"
"The monitoring could be improved. It's a pain to monitor the throughput through the MQ. The maximum throughput for a queue or single channel isn't clear. We could also use some professional services by IBM to assess and tune the performance."
"I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop."
"The ease of development and maintenance should be enhanced, but it is difficult due to the use of the proprietary programming language in the product."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Software AG Apama is ranked 1st in CEP with 1 review. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Software AG Apama is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Software AG Apama writes "A tool to send out promotional notifications that need to improve areas, like deployment and maintenance". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Software AG Apama is most compared with Oracle BAM.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
