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

IBM MQ vs TIBCO Rendezvous comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

IBM MQ
Ranking in Business Activity Monitoring
1st
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
172
Ranking in other categories
Message Queue (MQ) Software (1st)
TIBCO Rendezvous
Ranking in Business Activity Monitoring
3rd
Ranking in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM)
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Business Activity Monitoring category, the mindshare of IBM MQ is 29.8%, down from 40.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TIBCO Rendezvous is 8.9%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Activity Monitoring Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM MQ29.8%
TIBCO Rendezvous8.9%
Other61.3%
Business Activity Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

David Pizinger - PeerSpot reviewer
Has faced unexpected VM restarts but continues to deliver messages reliably
I'm not sure if we've utilized IBM MQ's high availability. Our MQ VMs are set up in clusters, and I think our queue managers are set up in pairs. However, I don't know if we actually use any specific high availability features of IBM MQ that are out of the box. We have it architected with high availability because we use F5 load balancers, and everything about our architecture is highly available. I haven't personally used the management tools with IBM MQ, but we do have them, and our middleware folks leverage them. I can't really comment on them because I don't use them myself. I don't think the management tools help optimize message flows, and I'm not really aware of how they help in this. I'm not familiar with dynamic routing for IBM MQ.
MP
Good communication, stable, and responsive support
TIBCO Rendezvous has some difficulties to be deployed in a cloud environment. We use it typically in a bare-metal infrastructure. We can use a cluster of the nodes of the other companies. For example, we cannot deploy in the cloud infrastructure, but the companies cannot deploy TIBCO Rendezvous in a cloud environment without issues. It is very easy to start the TIBCO Rendezvous in the DMO infrastructure. The first time we deployed TIBCO Rendezvous, we used it to support individual transaction integration between the distributed and mainframe applications. We spent approximately five days deploying TIBCO Rendezvous in the companies in their application. It's very fast to implement and to use.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This product has good security."
"The feature I find most effective for ensuring message delivery without loss is the backup threshold. This feature allows for automatic retries of transactional messages within a specified threshold."
"I like the architecture it provides seamlessly for assured delivery."
"Currently, we are not using many advanced features. We are only using point-to-point MQ. I have previously used features like context-based authentication, SSL authentication, and high availability. These are good and pretty cool features. They make your business reliable. For critical business needs, everyone uses only IBM MQ. It is the first choice because of its reliability. There is a one-send-and-one-delivery feature. It also has a no-message-loss feature, and because of that, only IBM MQ is used in banking or financial sectors."
"Data integrity, reliability and security are valuable features that IBM MQ possesses."
"The solution is stable."
"The best thing about IBM MQ solution is that it's guaranteed delivery and it's fast."
"The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
"TIBCO Rendezvous has a strategy to communicate in the network between the DMO of the product. They provide strategy through secure communication. They use the UDP protocol, but It's not a resilient protocol. They put another protocol to create a type of guarantee. It has a high level of communication between the DMO. This is the best capability the solution has."
 

Cons

"The installation of product upgrades and patches is very difficult. It requires the use of the IBM Installation Manager (IM)."
"Scaling is difficult with IBM MQ."
"There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily."
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"The solution requires a lot of work to implement and maintain."
"The customer service or technical support from IBM is not as good as we expected; it could be better. They don't meet our standards due to the timing to get a person with knowledge."
"Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."
"The licensing fees should be more cost-effective so that we can better pitch the product to our clients. With the pricing as it is, they tend to move away from IBM products."
"TIBCO Rendezvous is currently restricted in a cloud environment and it would be more useful in a hybrid cloud setup. It does not work correctly in a cloud environment alone. This is something they can improve in the future."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"In terms of cost, IBM MQ is slightly on the higher side."
"IBM is expensive."
"IBM's licensing model seems more reasonable than some competitors. They charge based on usage, which is good."
"This solution requires a license and we have purchased an enterprise license."
"We have a special contract with IBM MQ that give us a certain price."
"The pricing seems good according to the functionality that the solution provides."
"There is real money involved here. As compared to RabbitMQ, IBM MQ is on the higher side in terms of cost."
"Our costs haven't increased but they also have not improved."
"There is a license needed to use this solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Activity Monitoring solutions are best for your needs.
869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
35%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
4%
Financial Services Firm
64%
Computer Software Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
4%
Pharma/Biotech Company
3%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business19
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise146
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

WebSphere MQ
Rendezvous
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Agilent Technologies, Vodafone Hutchison Australia
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM MQ vs. TIBCO Rendezvous and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.