IBM Integration Bus Reviews

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.

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 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.

Our primary use case for IBM Integration Bus is that it is rigid, scalable, and offers high availability with minimal to no data loss. We have developed services that utilize IBM MQ to transfer data. Our service is running every day at the airport.

The error handling and monitoring functionalities of IBM Integration Bus are very good. However, Red Hat offers better monitoring tools.

IBM Integration Bus can improve by implementing no-code or drag-and-drop adapters development, similar to what is available in Red Hat. Additionally, the monitoring features could be improved.

I have experience working with IBM ESB for almost ten years.

I would rate the solution's stability at nine out of ten.

I would rate the solution's scalability at eight out of ten.

The customer service and support can be rated as eight out of ten, and I find them to be good.

Positive

Before using IBM Integration Bus, we used various other solutions, including TIPCO. I don't remember all of them now.

The initial setup of IBM Integration Bus was very difficult, especially during development. It was challenging to configure and install the solution on personal laptops or PCs when trying to download the free version for testing.

We used a third party for the deployment. We used to develop on top of an Integration Bus, however, we did not do the startup installation or installation field ourselves.

The pricing of IBM Integration Bus is very high, which is the biggest negative for us. It is one of the reasons why we opted for a different solution now.

I would recommend IBM Integration Bus because of its scalability and high stability.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution for a digital payment system.

The Cloud Pak for Integration is a useful feature.

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for five years. We are the solution provider.

The solution is stable.

The product is scalable. There are four customers using this solution.

The initial setup is not complex, but you should have a good understanding of programming. Installation depends on the project. For some projects with a limited interface, it takes two to three months, but for a bigger and complex one, installation can take up to six months.

In banks, it is deployed on both Cloud and On-premise.

The solution is expensive.

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

We use IBM Integration Bus within a finance domain.

The product helps efficiently work with different connectors from different back-end systems.

IBM Integration Bus needs to be more compatible with stable connectors for specific domains. For instance, it has two protocols: ISO 8583, a legacy protocol, and ISO 2022, which works on XML for the finance sector. Similarly, they should add connectors to banking applications and other specific industries.

We have been using IBM Integration Bus for ten years.

Being in the market for quite some years, IBM is a very stable and mature product. I rate its stability a seven out of ten.

The technical support services are good.

Primarily, our customers have the product deployed on-premises to follow protocols. Some customers deploy on private clouds as well. The product’s installation and configuration process is straightforward. It takes six months to two years, depending on the complexity of specific requirements.

I rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

The solution is a beneficial tool for integration purposes. It allows the integration of multiple systems irrespective of their format and type of connectors. Using it, we don't have to convert systems into different platforms such as JSON, XML, CSV, Excel, etc.

The solution's integration with Cloud Pak components could be better. Also, it needs improvement in terms of microservices.

I have been using the solution for 16 years.

I rate the solution's stability nine and a half out of ten.

The solution is scalable for enterprises as well as medium and small businesses. It is cost-effective and depends on the number of servers. Additionally, it helps integrate multiple backend systems.

I rate its scalability nine and a half out of ten.

When encountering difficulties, we raise the PMR to the solution's technical support team. Its response time might vary sometimes. Although, it is excellent as we have been receiving 24/7 support for the last six to seven years.

The solution's initial setup process is easy as I have experience working with six versions of it. We have deployed it on the cloud and have some of its components on-premises.

I rate the solution's pricing a one out of ten. It is expensive.

The solution works better than MuleSoft, Dell, WSO2, etc. Also, it is highly effective when integrated with an old legacy system in the EDI format using WTX, a mapping tool, compared to other solutions.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It is used for the banking domain and telco. We use it for integration between vendors from core banking and the other channels, for example, buyers, CRM and codes.

The most valuable thing is the loose coupling and making the change in only one stack of the ESB layer or the middleware layer. This helps in big projects and when we have multiple channels calling back at the same time.

The Toolkit itself is based on Eclipse and Java, and it does not respond sometimes. When we are working on the Toolkit using or working on our PCs or remote desktop the program has issues with performance. The performance needs to be enhanced. More labs for developers who want to learn about this technology for trial. They may provide a trial version of App Connect or Toolkit to try it for themselves.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for the past five years.

It is very stable and used by very large companies and banking in EMEA, or in Egypt and the Middle East. It is used in very stable projects and critical ones that have payment transactions, like wallets or through transactions, and internet banking.

It is very scalable.  We have twenty different developer and administrator teams working with it.

If we have to fix an installation or other support needed, an administrator opens a ticket with IBM and they support it, especially if it is in the license agreement with them. But, I am a developer, not related to technical support. From the community side, I would rate technical support a seven out of ten because IBM documentation is available over the internet and on other websites.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward and takes about one minute to deploy

We have the enterprise edition, and it is licensed yearly. I do not know what the cost is.

They can converge other products, ESB, or SOAR architecture. I may recommend IBM as a solution tool for a business if they are looking for a stable environment. They will find support on the community forum. I would rate IBM Integration Bus a seven 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.