We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why

IBM WebSphere Message Broker OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

IBM WebSphere Message Broker is #7 ranked solution in top Application Infrastructure tools and #8 ranked solution in top Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) tools. PeerSpot users give IBM WebSphere Message Broker an average rating of 8 out of 10. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most commonly compared to IBM Integration Bus: IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs IBM Integration Bus. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 26% of all views.
What is IBM WebSphere Message Broker?
WebSphere Message Broker is an enterprise service bus (ESB) providing connectivity and universal data transformation for service-oriented architecture (SOA) and non-SOA environments. It allows businesses of any size to eliminate point-to-point connections and batch processing regardless of platform, protocol or data format.

IBM WebSphere Message Broker was previously known as WebSphere Message Broker.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: January 2022

IBM WebSphere Message Broker Customers
WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin Tire
IBM WebSphere Message Broker Video

IBM WebSphere Message Broker Pricing Advice

What users are saying about IBM WebSphere Message Broker pricing:
  • "I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."
  • "This product is more expensive than competing products."
  • "The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."
  • IBM WebSphere Message Broker Reviews

    Filter by:
    Filter Reviews
    Industry
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Company Size
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Job Level
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Rating
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Considered
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Order by:
    Loading...
    • Date
    • Highest Rating
    • Lowest Rating
    • Review Length
    Search:
    Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
    Integration Specialist at Hudson's Bay
    Real User
    Top 20
    Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ
    Pros and Cons
    • "Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
    • "Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."

    What is our primary use case?

    We had different use cases such as point-to-point, and public subscribers. We have some APIs building business Message Broker and we have divisions such as the legacy mainframe. 

    We pretty much use everything. Most of the integration is done with Message Broker.

    How has it helped my organization?

    Working in retail we get a lot of traffic on Black Fridays and Cyber Mondays, and during that time, whatever serves have been deployed we want to scale them vertically. 

    We can create multiple nodes within the service itself and when we are not using it, we can stop all of those nodes.

    Most of what we have is on MQ for communication, and it integrates well with MQ.

    What is most valuable?

    Before the cloud, it was very easy for us to build and it was quick to integrate.

    Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage. 

    It integrates with MQ.

    Scaling up and down is easy for us using execution groups and nodes.

    It is easy to set up and deploy.

    What needs improvement?

    If you want to connect to the database, it provides solutions in India, but you have to purchase it separately. They are not mature enough and we have difficulties using them. They are expensive and not worth the money we are spending on them.

    I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons.

    Scalability needs improvement, it was easy to scale before microservices and Docker.

    Technical support is good but they could have a better response time.

    I think that they should provide us with some kind of capabilities that can be deployed. For example, if they have integration nodes that can be deployed separately instead of having a new, big server that has different components, to give us the capabilities to deploy everything on our own instead of building them up together. It would benefit us when it comes to scaling and building.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using this solution for seven years.

    We started with Version 7 and now we are at 10. 

    We are planning to use Version 11 and move to the cloud. It's still in process.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I would say that it's pretty stable, we have quite a bit running on it. It depends on how we configure it or what kind of infrastructure we are providing. For example, if we migrate from an old version to the new version and it's not done properly, you will experience it crashing every time. We had to build properly around it to achieve the proper results.

    If it is being used with a simple deployment or as a server, without doing a proper configuration, then it may not work well.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It was scalable before microservices and Docker. It is now looked at differently. With the new version of Message Broker, it's promising to get capabilities that we can use.

    We have a team of 10 to 15 developers, senior developers, and leads who are using this product.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is really good.

    I would rate them an eight out of ten because it goes from level one, two, or three and sometimes it takes time, based on the priority of the ticket that we are creating.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Previously, we were using Profusion. It was along the same lines as IBM WebSphere Message Broker. We ran into many different issues and at one time, we were running two solutions, Message Broker and an Oracle solution. Oracle has a database with different capabilities. It records every question that comes in. It was very difficult to maintain, and it just kept crashing and consumed the memory.

    It has so many issues, we stopped using it and went with IBM WebSphere Message Broker.

    How was the initial setup?

    If you compare it with the previous versions, this was pretty straightforward and easy to set up.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    There are always additional fees.

    What other advice do I have?

    It's a good solution but it's questionable now that microservers have come into it. I can't really comment on whether I would recommend this solution for those who are looking to implement this solution, because everyone has their own use case.

    I would rate IBM WebSphere Message Broker an eight out of ten. I had a good experience with this solution, and have not had any issues that we could not fix or handle.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Shubhashis Panda
    Solution Designer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Integration is a good component feature; very scalable
    Pros and Cons
    • "The solution has good integration."
    • "The installation configuration is quite difficult."

    What is our primary use case?

    I'm part of the company middleware, and we are managing things with Spheres, IHS, and also HU and EAZ. I've just become involved in trying to sort out a roadmap to migrate the EAZ from IAB to ACS Enterprise App Connect, that's the latest IBM technology. I'm a solution designer and we are partners of IBM. 

    What is most valuable?

    I mostly like the integration which is the component feature.

    What needs improvement?

    I haven't completely tested the solution. I have a CMM BPM background, and recently moved to work on this so I'm only now getting exposure in this particular area. It's difficult to comment at this early stage but I find the installation configuration is quite difficult compared to other solutions. The other issue is that I don't have cloud, and we can't get any cloud where IBM is moving. I'm not sure whether we can move this application to the Azure or AWS cloud solutions. It's a major challenge and we still haven't had any kind of official documentation from IBM as to how we can move forward on that. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using this solution for seven years. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We do sometimes get bugs and hardware glitches that require a memory reboot but overall, in comparison to other solutions specific to the banking domain, this product is quite good. It's able to handle a lot of applications and has a high capacity level. 

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The scalability is fine. We don't just have the direct users, but there are a lot of applications and things sitting on the ESB, and a lot of integration points. We probably have more than a thousand people using the function user ID, and the personal user ID.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    IBM technical support is pretty good. Sometimes it's difficult to simulate issues, or reproduce the issue to make them understand the problem. It can sometimes also take quite a while to resolve an issue. Overall, we are happy with the IBM support.

    How was the initial setup?

    The solution was already set up when I joined the team, but we still get requests regarding all the applications sitting on ESB which is a bit of challenge. Otherwise things are fine. 

    What other advice do I have?

    I think it's a reasonably good solution but I also believe it has some good competitors like MuleSoft which has good incubation points and has a cloud solution. ESB is still in the data centers, not the extenders, and they're mostly on a non-cloud based platform. 

    I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, MuleSoft, Software AG and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Updated: January 2022.
    563,208 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    AbdelMonem Azaz
    Integration Architect/Practice Manager at Saudi Business Machines - SBM
    Real User
    Top 20
    Mature, reliable, and performance-wise it is good
    Pros and Cons
    • "Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
    • "The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are system integrator and solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

    It comes with a development tool and we use it to develop integration flows. I am normally working with financial companies when using this solution. They use it for communication between heterogeneous applications at the backend. 

    How has it helped my organization?

    Message Broker has a broad set of application adapters that are used to integrate a very large list of applications.

    What is most valuable?

    Performance-wise, this solution is really stable and reliable.

    What needs improvement?

    The size of the container used in the deployment is still a bite large and I think it should be improved and become lighter.

    It would be useful to make container deployment easier .

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been working with IBM WebSphere Message Broker for the past seven(7) years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    This is a very reliable and stable solution that is used for a very large number of transactions. It has been on the market for about 20 years, so it is mature.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    This product is scalable.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I have been in contact with technical support and I find them to be good. Sometimes when I raise a ticket, it is just to get extra support to provide guidance for a feature that has been improved or discontinued.

    Given the stability of this product, it is rare that one opens a support case because of a defect in the code.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I am familiar with some other solutions that have a fancier toolkit and are easy to use, but with IBM, it is more stable, reliable, and trusted. At the same time, it is more expensive than other products on the market.

    How was the initial setup?

    The most recent version is really easy to install and configure, which will take about one day. The deployment is a simple drag-and-drop, so deploying it will take two days at the maximum.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    This product is more expensive than competing products.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We compare other options for our customers and we look at the pros and cons of each solution. Normally, customers decide based on their budget, the features, and the expected workload. In most cases, I recommend IBM.

    What other advice do I have?

    This is a good solution and when I have a customer that needs something with this capability, it is the first option that I suggest to them.

    I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    Enterprise Architect at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    The basic features work well, but it is expensive and the technical support is slow
    Pros and Cons
    • "We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
    • "Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

    What is our primary use case?

    We have a large number of use cases for this product. It is built into the underlying infrastructure for most of our applications.

    What is most valuable?

    We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern.

    What needs improvement?

    My biggest complaint about this product is the price. The cost is a significant reason why we're looking at other products right now.

    Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved. Significant improvement is needed, especially when dealing with a tier-one client.

    They are just now looking at Cast for their streams product, so they are a bit behind when it comes to technology. I no longer look to IBM for new technology.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using the WebSphere Message Broker for more than 10 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    We have had some issues in terms of stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    I would say that a lot of our organization is running on this solution, although the scalability isn't perfect. I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten.

    What about the implementation team?

    Our in-house software engineers are responsible for deployment and maintenance.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We are looking at replacing our IBM solution with RabbitMQ. It is currently being used in part of our business and we are thinking about expanding it to the whole enterprise.

    There is also the option of Kafka, although you really have to understand your use case before engaging with it.

    What other advice do I have?

    My advice to anybody who is looking at WebSphere Message Broker is to fully consider their use case. In general, I suggest looking for another product because there are better options available in terms of both cost and usability.

    I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Executive Director
    Real User
    Top 20
    Straightforward development and deployment but limited use and too expensive
    Pros and Cons
    • "Straightforward development and deployment."
    • "Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."

    What is our primary use case?

    My primary use case of this solution is as an application server as well as everything else related to the whole suite from IBM.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable features are the product's straightforward development and deployment, and its nice graphical user interface.

    What needs improvement?

    When choreography is necessary, the product doesn't work. IBM has to take a different approach to maintain the software as a service solution. The price could also be lowered.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using this solution for about seventeen years.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The scalability depends on how you build it, but it's easy to scale if you do it right.

    How are customer service and support?

    The tech support is good, I have had no issues with it.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup is relatively straightforward, depending on how knowledgeable the person in charge is.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    This product is expensive.

    What other advice do I have?

    If you have access to resources, it's not hard to learn to use this product. However, today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM. I would rate this solution as five out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Report and find out what your peers are saying about IBM, MuleSoft, Software AG, and more!