We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and IIS 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."We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The solution has good integration."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"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."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is easy to use and easy to understand."
"We use the solution for our customer's web applications."
"The product is easy to use."
"It helps scan and mitigates our vulnerabilities using the best protocols to secure our environment."
"IIS is easy to configure in terms of websites and other solutions."
"Windows Server IIS is stable."
"It's very easy to publish."
"The product is stable."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"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."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The solution's scalability needs improvement."
"The documentation isn't very good and the options are very complex."
"It would be beneficial if you could automate security certificate monitoring with IIS."
"The initial setup could be made easier."
"The cost is a bit too high."
"The areas of this solution that need improvement are monitoring, debugging, and troubleshooting."
"The tool needs to improve its performance."
"This solution needs to be easier for cases where you want to have an IIS cluster."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while IIS is ranked 1st in Application Infrastructure with 53 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while IIS is rated 8.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IIS writes " A simple and easy-to-use solution but not recommended for public apps". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and NGINX Plus, whereas IIS is most compared with NGINX Plus, Apache Web Server, Oracle WebLogic Server and Tomcat. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. IIS 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.