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."It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"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."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Microsoft .NET Framework reduces the cost of entry and enables the development of applications with mature and enterprise features, thereby lowering the entry barriers."
"User-friendly and straightforward."
"The .NET framework is a mature platform that is very helpful and saves time during the software development process."
"I'd rate the solution as highly stable."
"In-built refactoring and .Net profilers are the most valuable features of the solution."
"It is a stable solution."
"Proven solution with valuable customization."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"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."
"This solution should include Power BI so that we don't have to use any third-party tools."
"The learning curve could be improved."
"I would like to see a better response time from the technical support."
"I would want the product to be integrated with the different AI tools in the future since it is one of the areas where the product has certain shortcomings."
"If AI could be incorporated in Microsoft .NET Framework it would be helpful."
"Better integration with other tools to make the operation faster would be an improvement."
"The integration could improve in Microsoft .NET Framework."
"In my opinion, this solution can be improved by providing out-of-the-box support for different types of libraries."
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.