We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and webMethods Integration Server 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."Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The solution has good integration."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"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."
"The comprehensiveness and depth of Integration Servers' connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is unlimited. They have a connector for everything. If they don't, you can build it yourself. Or oftentimes, if there is value for other customers as well, you can talk with webMethods about creating a new adapter for you."
"Application integration, business process integration, and B2B partner integration are valuable. But among these, I feel B2B partner integration is the most valuable. This module integrates two business partners and exchanges data through electronic data interchange messages in the form of specific standards, without any manual process needed."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"The stability is good."
"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"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."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData."
"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"I would like to see the price improve."
"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."
"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. 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 webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and SAP Process Orchestration. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. webMethods Integration Server 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.