We performed a comparison between Avada Software Infrared360 and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business Activity Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"Secure, safe, and very fast."
"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."
"It is useful for exchanging information between applications."
"What is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up."
"Reliable messaging and throughput are the most valuable."
"Reliable integration between MQ servers is the most valuable feature."
"Offers good performance as well as scalability and stability."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"If they could come up with monitoring dashboards that would be good. We are using external monitoring tools, apart from our IBM MQ, to monitor IBM MQ. If we could get monitoring tools or dashboards to keep everything simple for the user to understand, that would be good."
"We are looking at the latest version, and we hope that resilience, high availability, and monitoring will be improved. It can have some more improvements in the heterogeneous messaging feature. The current solution is on-premises, so good integration with public cloud messaging solutions would be useful."
"IBM MQ's pricing is higher than its competitors'."
"They need to add the ability to send full messages (header + payload) from the MQ Explorer program, not just the payload."
"IBM HQ's scalability isn't the best."
"The solution requires a lot of work to implement and maintain."
"The product does not allow users to access data from API or external networks since it can only be used in a closed network, making it an area where improvements are required."
Earn 20 points
Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 6th in Business Activity Monitoring while IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 158 reviews. Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with Dynatrace, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and Amazon EventBridge. See our Avada Software Infrared360 vs. IBM MQ report.
See our list of best Business Activity Monitoring vendors and best Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) vendors.
We monitor all Business Activity Monitoring 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.