IBM Integration Bus Reviews

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The message queue feature is very valuable.

The product could be improved by including more resources on SQL and improving the simplicity of the resources available. Additionally, the price can be reduced.

We have been using this solution for approximately four years and are currently using the first version.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable, and there are currently many people using the solution in our organization. We have plans to increase the usage of the feature.

It is quite expensive and can be lowered.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our organization is a bank, so we use IBM Integration Bus for integration with core services and test applications.

IBM Integration Bus facilitates communication between parties and legacy systems. For example, the banking industry has a lot of legacy systems, so IBM Integration allows for communication between the legacy systems and new ones and allows us to develop solutions that can respond to the new ones.

We currently use version 10 of IBM Integration Bus. The most beneficial feature is the integration we have with legacy services. We can do the integration to expose other technology to stop, rest and manipulate the output of many legacy services.

We would like to separate the services into different containers, and we don't have this ability right now on IBM Integration Bus. We are currently doing this as an organization, and IBM is setting up the OpenShift.

The version of the technology and current knowledge is a bit outdated. There is also no DevOps, and the process of deploying that is the downside. Regarding additional features, we would like better integration with external solutions like Apache Kafka.

We have been using this solution for six years.

It is a stable solution. The downside is that sometimes it is easier to use another post, like a language outside of IBM Integration Bus, but overall it's a good solution.

It is not scalable.

We do not communicate much with IBM, only for initial setup and completing bootstrapping technology. However, we have IBM partners that work with us. I rate the technical support a four out of ten because they are sometimes a bit selective with the partners they pay attention to.

Our company has been using IBM technology from the beginning.

The initial setup is difficult to configure and set up the first time. I rate the setup a four out of ten.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

IBM Integration Bus is mainly used to integrate banking systems.

IBM Integration Bus' most valuable features are its performance, fast and easy development, and easy support.

Some of the runtime properties need to be improved because if you want to load certificates as sales security, you have to restart the server. There are also some bugs with file transfer protocol.

I've been using IBM Integration Bus for three to four years.

IBM Integration Bus is very stable.

The initial setup was straightforward, and IBM has a great knowledge base to help. I would rate the setup experience as four out of five.

IBM Integration Bus is expensive.

I would give IBM Integration Bus a rating of nine out of ten.

My primary use case of IBM Integration Bus is for designing and developing solutions. We use App Connect Enterprise as a micro ESB and, in cases where we need rapid development, as a microservices platform as well. I'm currently dealing with an on-premises version, but it's deployed on an internal cloud. 

One of the most valuable features is how seamless and easy to use this solution is. This is a fantastic solution and a very measured product. 

There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements. 

I have been working in IBM for almost 17 years now. 

This solution is stable. It's a fantastic solution and a very measured product. We only need one person to maintain the DevOps pipeline, but we do have a team of 10 developers to deliver the work.

IBM's technical support is fantastic. Their support process is very good. 

This solution is cloud-based. We are using it in a container image, so the one time CI/CD setup is there, in the pipeline setup, and after that the process is very seamless. We just check in our code, and then the pipeline creates an image of it and deploys it onto our private cloud platform. So it's very seamless and there's no hassle involved. 

Initially, we needed about three people for deployment: one for administrative activities, one with DevOps knowledge, and one developer. 

We implemented through an in-house team. I work as an architect, but we have a DevOps team that takes care of maintaining the pipelines and as-needed administration activities. 

I generally do not get involved in the licensing or pricing because I'm a hardcore technical guy, but I'm aware of the fact that IBM is highly expensive, so not everybody can afford it. All the products are licensed. 

I have heard of MuleSoft, a platform that provides a solution for API management, ESB, everything. When it comes to ESB, they have a package or facility feature for unit testing as well, called MUnit or something. From an ESB development point of view, this is the complete package. I was lacking these features in App Connect, but I heard that the latest version includes things like unit testing, automation features, all those things. I also heard that they added AI—I'm not sure where, but IBM is pretty big on that, as well as on adding more and more features in that area. 

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. This is a very measured tool and IBM has been doing a splendid job with this particular platform. Earlier, it was only possible to have an on-premises installation, but now that it's compatible with the cloud, it's a very seamless and fantastic tool. Especially with the current release, I really like this product. 

In terms of advice I would give to those considering implementation, I would say that there could be a problem with integration. Nothing to do with the tools, but from a resourcing point of view. I've seen that a lot of people with Java expertise can face problems when being introduced to this technology without proper training. When a Java developer gets into this particular technology and starts developing stuff, they may be unaware of certain best practices, certain standards, certain conventions that should be used. In my team, when we hire new resources, Java is an advantage for us and a person with Java knowledge is highly welcome, but when we look at their knowledge in the technology itself, there may be issues. This platform is complex and only a person with the right knowledge will be able to deliver. So my suggestion to those who are considering implementation: while resourcing, ensure that you've got the right knowledge on the architect side as well as the developer side. 

Our prime use case of Integration Bus is for message enrichment and message transformations. 

The solution offers good performance and it's stable. The message enrichment and message transformations are great features and the solution also has great security.

There are a few issues; the memory footprint needs to be improved. Memory replacements for on-prem should be minimized. Nowadays, if an application takes 4GB of RAM, that should be the minimum. Having this solution on-prem, is taking more memory and that memory footprint should be minimized.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution can be scaled horizontally and vertically.

The initial setup is straightforward and took a maximum of two hours. Our technical team had eight people dealing with the end-to-end deployment. 

I recommend this solution, it's an industry standard product.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

In general, we are using IBM Integration Bus for integration purposes only because we have multiple applications to integrate.

I have found IBM Integration Bus is very useful because it can integrate multiple backend applications.

The solution could improve by having built-in implementation and secure monitoring without the need for API Connect.

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

We have not had any issue with the stability of the solution. However, there are times when we have policies in place and after the installation, the data wizard does not work.

The technical from IBM has been very good.

The installation was straightforward.

IBM Integration Bus itself is prices fair but App-Connect is a bit expensive which we use in conjunction with it.

I have evaluated MuleSoft.

I would recommend this solution to developers.

I rate IBM Integration Bus a seven out of ten.

The IBM Integration Bus is a very strong, very easy-to-use product. 

We prefer it due to the fact that we can get support from IBM when we need to, as opposed to using open-source tools that do not have support.

Sometimes companies have systems from IBM, Oracle, HP, et cetera. IIB is a good candidate to enable all heterogeneous systems to exchange data smoothly without any effort.

The product is a user-customized tool so that you can adjust it to your specific needs pretty well with little trouble. 

The initial setup is easy.

While it is very user-friendly there is another open-source tool in the market you can use instead of it.

The integration could be better, especially when it comes to integrating with older systems or solutions. 

The solution needs to simplify its documentation, such as the user and operation manuals, to make them even easier to understand. 

I've been working with IBM products for 30 years or so. This particular IBM solution, however, I've dealt with for the last four years. That said, I have a lot of IBM experience. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product is upgradable. There is the potential to scale. 

In the Middle East, the customers are looking for a company that can take over anything and handles everything if there are issues. The support is very reliable and helpful. They are responsive and knowledgeable and we are very happy with their capabilities. 

I'm also familiar with Apache Kafka. Kafka is much faster. The performance is much greater than IIB. IIB is not as fast as Kafka.

For myself, the initial setup was very easy due to the fact that I have worked with IBM for many years and I'm quite comfortable with the brand.

That said, the IBM environment is fairly complicated. It is much easier than other options, even so, and technical support is quite helpful if users run into issues. 

I am not a partner for IBM. That said, IBM has used me for consultation issues and training sources. I used to be a partner, maybe six years ago.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are, of course, using the latest version. 

We use the solution for bridging the gap between different legacy systems. Re-usability is another function of the solution. So too, we use it to limit the challenges faced between different systems that are unable to communicate at the same speed and rate, or that need to talk among different systems, to utilize a channel which is bigger and better, to make use of the back-end or in respect of some other point-to-point integration need. As such, our uses for the solution vary depending on the customer. An example would be that which relates to a banking industry, for which there would be a core banking system, the need for card systems, ATM transactions, et cetera. Middleware plays a key role in the usability of these services. The goal is to avoid point-to-point integration between the channels and the back-end systems making use of the solution.

We have come across many customer complaints about the excessive time it takes for IBM to provide customer and technical support. 

Our organization has been using IBM Integration Bus in various branches, spanning a host of  locations, since before I joined 14 years ago. It has been doing so for the past 15 to 20 years. 

I consider the solution to be one of the most stable in the market, in comparison with others such as Oracle and this assessment I maintain on an ongoing basis. I have received much feedback from customers about the solution's stability. 

The solution is scalable, but we have yet to receive the full review and feedback. This is because we have been informed that the latest systems have only recently been produced. So, I cannot give you complete feedback about the scalability of the solution at the moment. The latest deployment is on a container platform.

We have received many complaints from customers that the customer and technical support should be faster. 

I believe the initial setup was easy, but this is a question best taken up with the technical team. 

I use the traditional licensing model, which I believe to not be on a monthly basis, as the solution is not cloud-based. 

I don't mind the pricing.

90 percent of days the solution is on the client enrollment. We are hoping to encounter good business cases, involving integration planning, as the trend is for people to gradually transition to the cloud, the government initiative being that involving Azure. 

As we are a service provider, I cannot give you exact figures about the number of users in our organization who are making use of the solution. As mentioned, this depends on the customer, with each one involving its own user type. 

I would, of course, recommend this solution to others.

I rate IBM Integration Bus as an eight out of ten.