We performed a comparison between IBM MQ and TIBCO Rendezvous 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."Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications."
"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."
"I like the MQ's simplicity and rock-solid stability. I've never experienced a failure in two decades caused by the product itself. It has only failed due to human error."
"This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
"It offers better reliability and monitoring compared to other tools."
"The thing that I like about MQ most is its reliability. It's one of those types of products that just works. You don't have to tinker around with it too much."
"IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"The feature I find most effective for ensuring message delivery without loss is the backup threshold. This feature allows for automatic retries of transactional messages within a specified threshold."
"TIBCO Rendezvous has a strategy to communicate in the network between the DMO of the product. They provide strategy through secure communication. They use the UDP protocol, but It's not a resilient protocol. They put another protocol to create a type of guarantee. It has a high level of communication between the DMO. This is the best capability the solution has."
"IBM MQ's pricing is higher than its competitors'."
"It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."
"the level of training as well as product marketing for this product are not that great. You rarely find a good training institute that provides training. Many of the architects in several organization are neither aware of the product nor interested in using it. IBM should provide good training on products like this."
"The solution requires a lot of work to implement and maintain."
"Scalability is lacking compared to the cloud native products coming into the market."
"I wanted to upgrade Windows Server. It's not that easy to move."
"IBM MQ is not very user-friendly."
"Should have more integration in the monitoring tools."
"TIBCO Rendezvous is currently restricted in a cloud environment and it would be more useful in a hybrid cloud setup. It does not work correctly in a cloud environment alone. This is something they can improve in the future."
Earn 20 points
IBM MQ is ranked 1st in Business Activity Monitoring with 158 reviews while TIBCO Rendezvous is ranked 4th in Business Activity Monitoring. IBM MQ is rated 8.4, while TIBCO Rendezvous 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 TIBCO Rendezvous writes "Good communication, stable, and responsive support". IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas TIBCO Rendezvous is most compared with TIBCO FTL and PubSub+ Event Broker. See our IBM MQ vs. TIBCO Rendezvous 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.