We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Application Server and IBM WebSphere Message Broker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is robust. The connection management and the scalability, which IBM provides to the Stack, are also valuable."
"One of the most valuable features might be the stability of the IBM WebSphere Application Server."
"IBM WAS is the backbone for our enterprise content management suite which delivers the primary processes for our customers. Without a good application server, it would be hard to provide a secure layer of midddleware upon which the other applications run. IBM WAS improves the stability of the entire solution and provides a high quality platform for running web-based solutions."
"The solution has good performance."
"Security: It is compatible with the latest Java 8 security features, supports FIPS 140-2 and NIST SP 800-53 with strong ciphers and cryptography keys, and supports TLS 1.2 completely. Also, configuring client and server certificates is relatively easy."
"What's most valuable in IBM WebSphere Application Server is its resilience. When you use the solution, you know that after the communication has been done, there will be no doubt that the data has reached its destination."
"The only reason why we're currently using WebSphere is that the integration of the authentication with Azure is very quick. WebSphere has something that can immediately connect with Azure Active Directory."
"The VPN service is quite useful."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The solution has good integration."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The availability of the solution needs improvement."
"The current trend is to move to Liberty because of the portability of its cloud and its Kubernetes, which containerize the application."
"The footprint could be reduced so that we can use a smaller virtual machine to run the application. We could also use more scripts. I would like this solution to be more script oriented, rather than GUI oriented."
"The installation has room for improvement."
"IBM needs to pay attention to market changes more quickly. We now have Java 9 and very soon Java EE8. We do not want to wait for two or three years after their release until they are supported by the new version."
"Sometimes, I feel WebSphere runs a bit slow. It might be loading unnecessary libraries, impacting its performance compared to other application servers."
"The solution consumes hardware."
"It should be able to serve more concurrent requests like Oracle. Oracle has more powerful stability, availability, and real-time serving."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
More IBM WebSphere Application Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Application Server is ranked 5th in Application Infrastructure with 26 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews. IBM WebSphere Application Server is rated 7.8, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Application Server writes "Compatible, stable, and scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". IBM WebSphere Application Server is most compared with JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, JBoss, Tomcat, Oracle WebLogic Server and IBM BPM, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM. See our IBM WebSphere Application Server vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.
