Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Aurea CX Messenger vs IBM MQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Aurea CX Messenger
Ranking in Business Activity Monitoring
4th
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
12th
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
8th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (14th), SOA Governance (7th)
IBM MQ
Ranking in Business Activity Monitoring
1st
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
1st
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
174
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 2.3%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM MQ is 22.9%, down from 23.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM MQ22.9%
Aurea CX Messenger2.3%
Other74.8%
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. IT Analyst at NCR Corporation
Lightweight and efficient solution
It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…
MK
SWIFT manager at Raiffeisen Bank Aval
Reliable payment processing is achieved with minimal disruption
Currently, we have some disadvantages; it's a bit difficult to use IBM ID to access support from the IBM site. To get nice support from IBM, we need to use IBM ID, and it's a bit complicated to integrate it with IBM support. Support can be better because sometimes we need explanations for some behaviors of the product, and it's not easy to reach the proper person in IBM support. They could add some new features into IBM MQ to make it better. A graphical user interface in addition to MQ Explorer could be useful, but we are satisfied with MQ Explorer as well.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
"Assists with our apps and has great message processing."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"This product has good security."
"I haven't seen any issues with respect to the message loss."
"IBM HQ's stability is great - we send six million messages a day, and we're very satisfied with HQ's ability to handle that volume."
"It runs everywhere, from the mainframe in the US to the PCs in the Gobi desert attached to an analog modem."
"The clusterization which results in persistence is the most valuable feature."
 

Cons

"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"It's not always easy for applications to connect to IBM MQ, but I think it's fine in general."
"IBM MQ could streamline its complexity to be more like Kafka without the channel complexities of clusters, making it more straightforward."
"Better error handling, such as a default dead message queue for errors, would be beneficial."
"IBM HQ's scalability isn't the best."
"I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution."
"While there is support for API, it's not like the modern API capabilities."
"IBM MQ's pricing is higher than its competitors'."
"MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
"The pricing is not so high."
"We have a special contract with IBM MQ that give us a certain price."
"Pricing could be better, as with all IBM products. But their performance in production, along with security and scalability, will pay returns in the long run."
"The fee for this solution is on the higher end of the scale."
"The license for IBM MQ is commercial and not cheap. You get a multi-platform solution, which is important because it lets you connect systems on mainframes, personal solutions, Unix, Linux, etc."
"There is a different platform price between Windows, z/OS, and iSeries."
"Most of our customers are quite happy with the solution but they have an issue with the cost. They want to move to cheaper solutions."
"I think the pricing is reasonable, especially with IIB as a part of it."
"Our costs haven't increased but they also have not improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Insurance Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Media Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
29%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Marketing Services Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise147
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is MQ software?
Hi As someone with 45+ years of experience in the Transaction and Message Processing world, I have seen many "MQ" solutions that have come into the market place. From my perspective, while each pro...
What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
How does IBM MQ compare with VMware RabbitMQ?
IBM MQ has a great reputation behind it, and this solution is very robust with great stability. It is easy to use, simple to configure and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocol...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
WebSphere MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Aurea CX Messenger vs. IBM MQ and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.