IBM Integration Bus Reviews

We use IBM Integration Bus to communicate with existing systems like COBOL. We utilize COBOL copybooks, which we need to transform for downstream systems. We create schemas and leverage the COBOL capabilities to convert messages to the target systems. This is one example of our integration use case.

IBM Integration Bus integrates with various applications and systems.

We have many external customers who call our Integration Bus using the SOA WSDL. We expose WSDL to external systems, allowing them to share inputs with the Integration Bus. 

In turn, the Integration Bus integrates with additional third-party and external systems. So, it acts as a middle layer between source and target systems.

IBM Integration Bus has been effective in facilitating our messaging and service-oriented architecture (SOA) or bus architecture. 

So, we're already utilizing it to transform the data from the source it's sending. It converts the data from the format the source sends it into the format the destination system requires. So we are transforming the messages, which are required by the destination system; that's the one way. 

Another way we are routing the messages to the different destinations is based on the source and the payloads they are giving. So we are reading that payload and, based on that, targeting the task. So, we are transforming the same message to the different destinations. That's another way.

IBM Integration Bus's built-in nodes significantly simplified our integration tasks. Almost all of our solutions have benefited from the built-in nodes. Each node has its own specific functions, making them incredibly valuable for various development tasks.

Transforming the messages is a valuable feature for me. 

All the message transformations, conditional routing, and simple data movements are already built-in. 

Additionally, there are some powerful conditional processing capabilities. These features, especially conditional routing and complex data mapping, are crucial for handling multiple complex integrations.

The graphical mapper makes transformations much easier. For simple one-to-one mappings, the source and target can be directly connected, saving developers time.

Performance can be an issue sometimes. The tool occasionally crashes due to memory-related problems. We've reported these issues to IBM, and they are actively working on improving the tooling experience.

It would be great to see better memory management to avoid these crashes.

I have been using this solution for five years now. I use v10. 

I had no issues with stability. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

We haven't encountered any issues with volume or performance based on our testing. While we are still developing these applications, we are confident in the solution's ability to handle high volumes.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.  

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy. 

It's very easy to set up. It typically takes less than an hour.

Two people were involved. One is the administrator, who has the necessary permissions and installs the product. 

The other is the integration developer, who defines the integration flows, steps, and profiles. 

One person could be from IBM support, while the other would be from the Windows or Linux administration team.

The product requires ongoing maintenance. However, the people required for the maintenance depend on the project. In my organization, we have five to ten based on our projects.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use IBM Integration Bus for document conversions.

We decided to move away from IBM Integration Bus for IT technical refreshments.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for ten years.

IBM Integration Bus is a stable solution.

I rate IBM Integration Bus a nine out of ten for stability.

IBM Integration Bus is a scalable solution.

I rate IBM Integration Bus an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

I rate the solution’s technical support an eight or nine out of ten.

Overall, I rate IBM Integration Bus a nine out of ten.

I primarily use IBM Integration Bus to integrate core banking and card management systems.

IBM Integration Bus's best feature is integration.

IBM Integration Bus isn't particularly user-friendly and has a big learning curve. In the next release, IBM Integration Bus should support microservice architecture.

IBM Integration Bus is very stable.

IBM Integration Bus is scalable.

I previously used TIBCO and webMethods.

The initial setup was complex; deployment took around a month, while implementation took around four months.

We have seen a decent ROI from IBM Integration Bus.

IBM Integration Bus is expensive.

I wouldn't recommend IBM Integration Bus to other users because of its high learning curve, and I'd rate it seven out of ten.

We used the solution for opening new accounts for a banking system. Our client used some old techniques and didn’t have an integration layer. I created an account opening application for our client.

IBM Integration Bus is a very strong tool. It helps in integrating the front-end and back-end systems.

We have to stop the integration server to start the debugging process. The debugging mechanism of other products is better than that of IBM.

I have been using the solution for six months.

I did not face any issues with the solution’s stability.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is easy, but the database is quite heavy for the local DC. It was also a little bit complex to connect to some databases.

The deployment of the solution is very easy. We just add the integration server and drag and drop the services to the integration server. We deployed the solution in-house. We do not face any trouble in the maintenance of the product.

I am a system integrator. In Software AG, debugging does not intervene with any other process. I also use Software AG webMethods and TIBCO. Software AG webMethods is the best product because it is very easy to develop and flexible. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product helps us develop integration applications. It also enables communication between applications from different environments.

The features I have found most valuable in this solution are transformation and routing.

IBM Integration Bus doesn’t provide some features that MuleSoft provides. These features should be added to the solution.

The product does not provide API management. We have to use a separate tool called API Connect for our needs. It would be good if IBM could combine these tools.

I have been using the solution for the past nine years.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The people in our organization who faced scalability issues deployed the product on the cloud, where they could make it scalable. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

I have spoken with the support team about a couple of issues. They were really helpful, and the response was very fast.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. We did not face any challenges.

It took us a couple of minutes to deploy the product. We deployed the solution with our in-house team. A team of two to three administrators usually monitors the product in the production environment.

I am using the latest version of the solution. We use Jenkins to deploy the applications we build on IBM Integration Bus. My organization is one of the largest IT service providers, with hundreds of customers across the globe.

We depend on IBM for patches when there are some issues in the production environment. I am a developer, and I work in solution development. I have worked with multiple organizations for multiple accounts. I would recommend the solution to others. IBM Integration Bus is a leading product.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We are using IBM Integration Bus as a messaging solution for our customers. They have legacy systems. Some are MQ systems, file-based systems, app-based systems, and ERP systems. We place it in the middle of integrations. One system sends messages or communicates to another system written by us.

I am into microservices using Java Spring Boot, but if we are using legacy systems, IBM Integration Bus is very good for them. They have their own computational logic called EC12, their own proprietary language. You can do any kind of complex logic and can implement other ESVs that I have seen.

IBM Integration Bus can improve JSON Schema validations. We don't have any kind of nodes that can support that kind of validation. If we want to containerize it by means of the docker's containers in the clouds, we are not able to manage it very well.

In a future update, IBM Integration Bus could add better API management. It only supports Swagger at this time.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for approximately eight years.

IBM Integration Bus sometimes hangs but the IBM App Connect Enterprise successor version is a lot better.

IBM Integration Bus scalability depends. The scalable of the on-premise version is difficult to scale. For example, if you're using the file processing that can be locked on the files and there is an increase in the number of threads there is some limit. The cloud version is not the same, by using a container, we can scale up to any extreme level. That kind of scalable is not there in the on-premise version.

We have 10 to 15 people using the solution.

I never interacted with IBM for technical support. However, my clients have and they have had a good experience.

I have not worked with other solutions similar to IBM Integration Bus.

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus version 7 was complex, but the 10 and 11 versions were not difficult. We are using IBM App Connect Enterprise, the successor version of the IBM Integration Bus. IBM Integration Bus no longer exists, but the installation was quite easy. This is a single-step installation. The installation can take approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

The price of the IBM Integration Bus is expensive. If you compare the price to the cloud version you can purchase what you need but the on-premise version price is flat.

We evaluated other solutions.

In the modern integrations in the EPAs world, IBM Integration Bus is not well fitted, because if we have legacy systems, it is fine, but if you want to manage the EPA, govern the EPA to allow people to choose the different platforms, such as the cloud platform, Mule CloudHub I would not recommend it. For the legacy integrations, I can recommend this solution.

I rate IBM Integration Bus an eight out of ten.

The most valuable features of the IBM Integration Bus are the flexibility to easily integrate with other solutions, such as SAP or any other vendors.

The cloud deployment of the IBM Integration Bus should be made easier.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for approximately six years.

IBM Integration Bus is stable. We have a lot of infrastructure running on it, and it has worked well. We have many application integrations that we used it for, and we did not have that many issues.

The scalability of the IBM Integration Bus is good because it can scale within the application. The whole application installation has some scalability, not only the server. It's easy to scale.

We have approximately 20 developers using this solution and we do not plan to increase the usage.

I have used the support from IBM and they have a ticket priority system. For example, they assign priority to the ticket, such as P1, P2, and P3. P1 is the highest priority and P3 is the lowest. When we are assigned a P1 priority we have someone contact us directly from IBM.

I rate the support from IBM Integration Bus four out of five.

IBM Integration Bus's initial setup is straightforward. They made it really simple to install everything. The process only took a few minutes.

We did the implementation of the IBM Integration Bus in-house. We have two people for the maintenance and support of the solution.

IBM Integration Bus solution is expensive and this is one of the reasons we are looking for an alternative, such as MuleSoft.

There are some additional pieces of software we need to purchase to do certain kinds of integrations, this should be included and we should not have to pay extra.

My advice to others is this is a great solution if you can afford it.

I rate IBM Integration Bus an eight out of ten.

We are currently looking at other vendors, such as MuleSoft, to see what their offerings are.

We use the solution for synchronizing data across the enterprise and opening data to extend its use by simplifying and making it consistent regardless of its source. 

It's for installing a line of indirection between data source and consumer to reduce contention at the source, and to add security, audit, and combine data from multiple places.

With it, we are implementing GDPR rules on data use, compensating for systems being unavailable, and delivering low latency for website users.

I have designed solutions for payment processing, Service-Oriented Architectures, micro-service architectures, data sharing and synchronization, and point to point data sharing using this product across banking, retail, and many other industries.

Many projects absorb a great deal of time and budget to find data and understand how to access it. This product allows data to be found and cataloged, allowing multiple projects to create a full directory of data in the enterprise over time.

The introduction of a mediation component allows data to be combined from multiple sources and for those sources to change or expand without impacting the consumers. In some settings, the number of consumers can be significant (100+) making adapter patterns rather expensive to maintain.

Having a single (logical) place to go for information reduces the responsibilities of the consumer for navigation - in turn allowing systems to move, update, and be replaced with reduced risk and cost. 

The cost reductions are significant but rely on proper architecture and design.

The solution's most valuable aspects include:

Data enrichment and consistent access. It reduces the need for programmers of consumer applications to understand where data is sourced, or how it is combined. It allows us to avoid the need for consumers to understand multiple API protocols and security arrangements, and in some circumstances can reduce the impact of systems being unavailable.

Data mediation and secure access. It reduces programmer error and hides the underlying systems, making it simpler to change them. It imposes a line of control between consumer and source, reducing the scope of testing needed for new consumers, and avoiding tests on consumers when the source changes.

High-performance data management for data in motion. The product supports clustering and can be tightly integrated into IBM MQ, making it a perfect platform for payment processing and high-performance data processing (50,000 tx/sec and above). For those that do not need the performance, this translates to cloud consumption savings.

Resilient communication management. The product can use transactional integrity to assure consistent data and non-loss communications (especially when combined with IBM MQ). This means that when processing large numbers of transactions no time is lost trying to discover what was lost.

The product has been well managed and continually improved throughout the time I have used it. 

There is very little that can be improved. It already contains adapters for MS-Dynamics and other enterprise packages and supports many protocols and transmission structures. 

The next versions are moving toward container use. It would be a shame to make the product highly complex just to support one pattern of deployment. It is my hope that IBM continues to focus on practical functionality that is simple and cost-effective.

We've used the solution for 20 years - since it was previously named MQ System Integrator.

IBM ACE is very well engineered and very stable. We have several customers running old versions that have been 100% reliable for their operational lives.

If an installation does encounter a failure, for example power failure, the product is good at reporting useful messages, and in combination with IBM MQ to protect data running through the system. The product can be installed in a clustered configuration to remove single points of failure, and to scale to accommodate higher loads.

It's very stable.

This solution is highly scalable and resilient. It's combined with MQ or load balancers for fault tolerance and highly parallel processing.

It's highly scalable.

In my experience, support has always been very good for this product. 

Positive

I have previously used databases to store and forward and C-programs to manipulate data. When this could no longer cope (sometime in the 1990s), I discovered IBM MQ and other messaging products, which are designed to do what we were building. The MQSI product of the time was simply magic and the latest incarnations (App Connect Enterprise) are far beyond anything that could be done with a database. 

I have reviewed other technologies, including Microsoft, open-source, and others. It remains my opinion and experience that this product delivers quicker development and more reliable outcomes.

A was working as part of the vendor team, as part of the implementation consulting organization.

Very much depends on the industry and project.

Installation of the base product has been simplified over the last five years or so, and is now fairly straight forward. 

You need an infrastructure design for the product deployment and an integration architecture and design documented and agreed to get the best from this software. It is relatively easy to program (Extended SQL, Java, and other options are available), however, it's important to think and take advice before you start.

The product is generally priced per processor core.