We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and Red Hat AMQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team."
"The first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage."
"Reliable integration between MQ servers is the most valuable feature."
"It is useful for exchanging information between applications."
"We have implemented business to business transactions over MQ messaging. The guaranteed and once only delivery ensures business integrity."
"The solution is easy to use and has good performance."
"The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day."
"AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"This product is well adopted on the OpenShift platform. For organizations like ours that use OpenShift for many of our products, this is a good feature."
"Reliability is the main criterion for selecting this tool for one of the busiest airports in Mumbai."
"I wanted to upgrade Windows Server. It's not that easy to move."
"The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory."
"The main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now."
"You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000."
"I have used the support from IBM MQ. There is some room for improvement."
"The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"The challenge is the multiple components it has. This brings a higher complexity compared to IBM MQ, which is a single complete unit."
"There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 8 reviews. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while Red Hat AMQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat AMQ writes "A stable, open-source technology, with a convenient deployment". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, PubSub+ Event Broker and Anypoint MQ, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware Tanzu Data Services, IBM Event Streams and Amazon MQ. See our IBM MQ vs. Red Hat AMQ report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software 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.
