We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus and IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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."It is very straightforward. It is very user-friendly integration."
"What I like best are the monitoring features."
"Content is easily infiltrated in the eclipse infrastructure."
"The solution offers good performance and is stable."
"The interface is quite stable."
"It makes the communication between multiple and heterogeneous applications so easy. We can bring together different messages and applications from different platforms and connect them through IBM Integration Bus."
"My favorite feature is the XML-based DFDL mapping, which is a tool that allows you to graphically map legacy data formats to modern data formats."
"The message queue connectors are the most valuable feature. They have built-in connectors for most of the systems, like SAP and Oracle Database."
"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 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."
"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 has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Migrating to this solution is complex and it would be helpful if they had a way to convert existing integrations."
"The price could be better. It would also be better if they simplified the code."
"The interface could be more user-friendly."
"I believe there is room for improvement in the pricing structure to make it more accessible."
"IBM Integration Bus can improve JSON Schema validations. We don't have any kind of nodes that can support that kind of validation. If we want to containerize it by means of the docker's containers in the clouds, we are not able to manage it very well."
"The product does not provide API management."
"Technical support is something that should be better."
"Today, the IBM business rule engine, the DataPower is outside the Enterprise Service Bus. It's sold as a different feature or application. If it could be integrated, then it's able to handle a lot more of what we are doing now rather than just have a stateless ESB that you can't do much on, and a set of normal business rules."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"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."
"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 images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 65 reviews while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". 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 Integration Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM Integration Bus vs. IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.