IBM MQ Reviews

Its scalability and uptime is very high. So, these are the two main valuable features of this product. We rarely see any downtime on MQ's side of the product.

It helps us, i.e., even if some of the other apps are down, we don't lose any of the customer data, so it's very beneficial from that perspective.

We would like to see more clustering, high availability, and also monitoring features. Monitoring is a big part. We would like to see if we get back out queues or the queue depth goes high, so that we can be alerted on that.

It still needs some improvement, in terms of high availability and the clustering needs to be improved. Monitoring is a big piece which is missing.

We have been using this solution for the past ten years.

For the stability of this product, I would give it a 9/10 rating. Only sometimes when some queue manager dies, then at that point, we lose a couple of messages but not a whole lot.

I would give the technical support a 7/10 rating because we do get the response back, but a lot of time gets wasted in carrying out processes such as getting and sending logs, instead of coming online and sharing the screen and troubleshooting the issue.

We work with Proficient Solutions, Inc. and Prolifics. There are others as well, but these are the two major ones.

The number one criteria while selecting a vendor is availability. The other factors that we look for are proximity, their technical knowledge, market reputation and of course the pricing policy.

It's a good product. Compared to the other products on the market, it's a very good product. Based on your company needs, you should give it a try and it should work.

The most valuable features of this solution are its reliability, efficiency, and the capacity to bring value.

The benefits are the satisfaction of my users (my clients), the stability of the solution, and the availability it provides.

It would be nice for the next release to have better reporting. For example, elasticsearch or ELK. We don't have that with IBM. So we have implemented our own solution.

We have a major application based on DataPowers and WebSphere servers.

We had an main issue to visualize efficiently the utilization of our WebSphere applications (load, who is using, when, how). It’s critical in defining our “capacity planning”.

Actually, we’ve developed our own reporting solution based on Kibana/Elasticsearch. Kibana analyses ours logs in real time. We have done a portal with several graphs. It is really impressive. We are very happy with our solution.

IBM doesn’t provide, by default, a reporting item as efficient as Kibana. DMGR is not as powerful and flexible.

The stability is quite good. It's strong and the performance is important.

Scalability is a bit difficult for us. Since this product is an IBM product, we have to work together with IBM to be more efficient at this point.

We are not really happy with their support. They don't have the skills to very efficiently answer our questions, so our relationship with them is difficult.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

When it's too difficult to have what we want with IBM, we develop our own, better solution and we try to integrate our own solution with IBM.

When selecting a vendor, we look for the confidence, the relationship. We have to share the same objectives and to agree in order to deliver the same value to the client.

It's good for messaging, very reliable, and forward compatible, so it makes our life easy when it comes to upgrades.

It's reliability really enables us to do our interfaces. Additionally, it scales really well, so when our needs grow, it grows with us.

We would like to see more capabilities with MQ over the internet. It would be very helpful to us to expose our API and web services. We want to see that a little bit more and we want to continue to see that it's a secure means for us to protect our data.

We are absolutely happy with the stability.

We are absolutely happy with the scalability.

We did use technical support mostly when doing upgrades. I would say that we have used this solution for about 15 years already. We only encountered production problems two or three times. It is a very reliable, very solid solution.

I've been involved with integration for a long time. When we first talked about our need to do queue messaging, MQ was the first one that came up. It proves itself.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was straightforward.

I don't recall whether we evaluated alternatives. I think IBM was the first and the last one we reviewed a solution with.

Do the same thing we did. Make sure that you give it a small test first to make sure the solution really works well. Then, make sure it scales.

WebSphere messaging, clustering and security are the most important and most valuable features.

Security is the most important thing right now. Nowadays, you can see people are hacking into systems to steal customer data. MQ has very good security features and it supports very good protocols.

The biggest advantage about us using messaging is that we can connect to most of the financial customers across the globe securely and data is always sent only once, asynchronously as well as synchronously.

We are moving toward the cloud. How can we migrate the existing customers to a private cloud? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Maybe it's already there. I need to know.

It is a very stable product. We have been using it for more than ten years. It is very stable.

It's pretty much scalable, but I'm looking to see if we can scale to cloud using the existing infrastructure. It’s like picking up buckets. It’s very lax.

We have used technical support. Not for the solution, but for problems or issues. I would say that they are okay. If you want me to rate between one to ten, I would rate them four.

We did not previously use a different solution. This is something that we started using and it has grown tremendously in eight or ten years. It is one of the most widely used messaging solutions, internally and for external customers.

I was involved in the initial setup. It is straightforward. Since I'm familiar with this tool and been working with it for 12 years, it was straightforward.

We did not evaluate any alternatives.

I think it all depends on the business need or the price. If the budget is strict, then they go with other solutions. They compromise on the business need. If they are OK with the budget, then they just go with it.

It doesn't lose transactions, it's fast, and it runs on every platform.

The benefits are the same as the most valuable features. Close coupling between different domains, which reduces your total cost of ownership by not inter-tweaking everything.

For me, there are no areas with room for improvement. We are happy like it is. I don't think we have any special additional needs. I think it does what it's supposed to do and it caters to the requirements we have at this moment.

We would actually like some dashboard improvements, because we've set up some manual dashboarding. We use other tools to monitor MQ. But, if that would be a part of MQ, then we're looking at a TCO reduction again. So it would be interesting if we could get rid of these additional tools.

For me, the management is lacking. It's doable, but it's not graphical. Almost everything you need to do in command line mode. It's pretty technical.

There is no downtime. It is very stable.

We have no problems with scalability. It scales all the way around.

We have used technical support. For MQ, it's very good, compared to other products.

We didn’t have a previous solution. There was a new requirement to handle asynchronous transactions, and MQ seemed to be the best solution at that moment.

I was involved in the setup of the distributive systems. It was straightforward.

We did't look at other vendors, because, at that moment, IBM was our preferred partner, and still is, so we first looked at the IBM solution.

Just do it.

The scalability of the environment is the most valuable feature. We also like the speed and the manageability of this tool.

It keeps all of our large systems interconnected, so the MQ is at the base of all of our system integration.

I would like better control over the depth of messages that go in there from all the learning and notifications, better management tools around queue depth, queue issue, that kind of stuff. If things are backing up in the queue, getting better at learning from a dashboard of how the whole ecosystem of MQ is running, that'd be really nice. Because we're using a third party to get that now.

Stability is very strong. We haven't had any issues.

We really like the multi-channel queue manager that allows us to have different entries into the queue and manage that traffic; kind of splitting it out. That gives us an immense amount of scale as we add new applications.

We have used support. They are okay. Opening a PMR is a pain in the neck. When you're in a critical event, you don't want to go open up a web ticket. You want to get somebody on the phone, it could fix the problem now. We get that it all goes with the support level and we are pretty high.

We had a mainframe that had MQ associated to it, so we just kept it going forward.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Study hard, and implement small, and then scale.

Responsiveness, the tool, and price are what I look for in a vendor.

The most valuable features are the integration services in the company.

We are using it for the APIs, beepers, and beeper processes in order to integrate data into the source systems.

Actually, I am looking to move to the cloud. We need to integrate the databases that are in the company and provide API integration services in the cloud. Thus, we would like to see more cloud integration.

This product has very strong stability. We don't have interruption problems.

The technical support is very good. We have a partner in Puerto Rico. They have people with extensive experience, and they help us.

We looked at the Microsoft solutions, as well. However, IBM was most important.

We look at all the tools and then we compare them to WebSphere. We can then understand which tool we need.

IBM is a leader, but there is always room for improvement.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor include:

• The support that they provide
• The knowledge they have of the tools that we need to purchase

It can be managed from a web page.

The benefits of the new version are greater ease of use and management of MQ.

At a recent industry event, I discovered that the future version of MQ would provide more web services, such as API, and the ability to manage MQ using a web application. Those will be very good improvements to the product.

I can say that it's stable.

It is scalable, but not easily.

I have opened a ticket. Technical support are not bad.

Relationship is the most important element when looking for a vendor.

I was not involved with the initial setup. We usually get in touch with them in order to solve the issues.

Just go ahead and do it.