We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Oracle Service Bus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The solution has good integration."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"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."
"The routing and aggregation are the most valuable features. It's split and join."
"This product is not complicated and very easy to learn."
"The communication between applications is already defined, which means that you don't have to redefine your service infrastructure at the lower level."
"I like the ease of deployment and the ease of implementation."
"What I like most about Oracle Service Bus is that you can use it for many integrations. For example, you can use it for on-premises to on-premises integrations, on-premises to cloud integrations, and cloud to on-premises integrations."
"Monitoring feature that allows tracking of the web's UI development."
"The solution is quite stable overall. We haven't witnessed any performance issues so far."
"Supports multiple protocol technologies and web services."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"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."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"This solution would benefit from having more cloud-based adapters."
"The weak point of OSB is the single point of failure."
"There is significant room for improvement in the monitoring capabilities."
"This solution should work better with RESTful services."
"We have faced a problem with the heap memory side, but that is stable now."
"The connectivity with the solution is an area that needs to be improved. On occasion, requests are lost due to losing connectivity."
"There are some loopholes in service and support."
"The inconvenient part about working with this product is that it's very heavy, requiring a lot of people and a lot of resources."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Oracle Service Bus is ranked 5th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 25 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Oracle Service Bus is rated 7.8. 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 Oracle Service Bus writes "Enables us to do a lot of aggregation and routing, but API response can be a problem if the payload is heavy". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IIS, whereas Oracle Service Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Oracle Service Bus report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.
