We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Microsoft .NET Framework based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 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."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"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 documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"I like that ASP.NET is used for the framework and the core web services."
"The tool offers a lot of support, and there is a lot of knowledge material available, along with a lot of community groups."
"When it comes to the user interface, the context is better than other tools because it is easier to use."
"The Windows Communication Foundation is the biggest advantage we get from the .NET Framework."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It is a stable solution."
"Given that it's cross-platform right now, where you can use it on Windows and Mac, that is the single most significant feature that has resulted in wider adoption of .NET."
"The .NET Framework simplified operations dealing with the allocation and deallocation of memory spaces and the additional processing resources."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"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."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"This solution is best used with some training."
"The integration with DevOps tools, such as Azure DevOps, Jira, and GitLab, would be a valuable addition."
"Lacking in auto-scaling."
"The integration could improve in Microsoft .NET Framework."
"The solution is difficult to learn if someone is learning it for the first time."
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"If Microsoft would provide a monthly subscription at a cost that a developer can afford then it would be really helpful."
"The solution has difficulty integrating with other products. There are no such difficulties if you have the same platform, hardware, and operating system."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 10th in Application Infrastructure with 11 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft .NET Framework is rated 8.4. 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 Microsoft .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and IBM BPM, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, Magic xpa Application Platform, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server and Windows Process Activation Services. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Microsoft .NET Framework report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.