IBM Integration Bus Reviews

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 work with multiple customers, and this is one of the tools we use to help them with integration.

I like the API lead integration, which is more focused, and I also like real-time integration.

The price could be better. It would also be better if they simplified the code.

I have been using IBM Integration Bus for more than 15 years.

IBM Integration Bus is a stable solution.

On a scale from one ten, I would give stability a nine.

IBM Integration Bus is a scalable solution. We have about 1000 users and 30 applications.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability an eight.

IBM's technical support is pretty good. They are very quick to respond once we raise a PMR with them.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. We already have a CI/CD pipeline in place. We just have to create the images, and then automation takes over and deploys it quickly.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the initial setup a nine.

We deployed this solution. We have two to three people who do this.

IBM Integration Bus is expensive. There are cheaper products in the marketplace.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the pricing a two. 

I would recommend this product as it's an IBM product. However, it all depends on the use case. If it's heavy machine-based transactions, I recommend IBM Integration Bus. But if it's API-based, I would recommend another solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give IBM Integration Bus a six.

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.

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 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.