IBM MQ Reviews

It makes it very easy to update and define queues, look at messages, queue depth, and queue properties. We use it in conjunction with the integration bus for testing and development.

It's very handy, graphical, easy to use, pretty, and intuitive.

I'm not sure. I've been working with it for about two years, so I'm still learning, but I like it. I'm pretty satisfied with it. But, the initial launch of the application seems to be pretty slow. Once you're inside, it does respond pretty quickly; it's just that initial load that takes a while.

I've had very good luck with it. It's a little bit slow when you open it, but once you're inside, it seems to respond very well.

It handles everything we have. We have multiple queue managers and broker managers running on different servers, and you can connect to multiples of them. I haven't had any issues with doing that.

I haven't used technical support, but my group has.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

I would advise them to go ahead and use it.

When looking for a vendor, I look at stability, their prevalence in the market, other companies using it, and the ability to get support for the product.

The messaging and the security are the most valuable features. We can find everything in queue, because that's the basis of our business.

It is hard to say how it has improved the way my organization functions because it's been here since the beginning. I'm not sure I have an answer.

Right now, I can't think of anything that needs improving.

Stability is great. We have not had any issues recently. Version 7 was a tough one, but since then, they've improved it.

Scalability is great. We use it on Unix, Linux, z/OS, Windows, everything.

We use technical support, the PMR, all the time and it's great. It's usually really quick.

It was too long ago; it wasn't my decision to switch.

I was involved with the initial setup. It wasn't quite straightforward because the original versions used CICS and that was a little tricky sometimes. But, then they went and made the agent as part of the package of using the CICS.

Go for MQ. It will solve your problems for interconnectivity and just whatever you need to do; scalability wherever you need to go.

The number one thing is it's pretty reliable with data integration. It gets done what we need to do; transport messages from source to destination.

It is the core component of what we do. We're using it to distribute messages from one platform to different multiple platforms.

We're moving to the next version. I really don't have anything I want improved. There are unknown bugs that we run across where we don't know where they are from, and the next fix pack will fix it.

Stability is pretty good, really. We have not had any downtime.

Scalability is good.

My colleagues have used technical support. I would say it's good.

I wasn't part of the decision to switch.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

Use it.

I've used other solutions, but the most valuable features of this solution are the search capabilities, consolidating the data and searching through the data. I think that these are some of the key things.

For this organization, it was the first log management solution. So, it definitely gave us the ability to search through the data when we had events. We could search based on the identity of the person, or the machine, or the IP address. We could do a lot of different searches.

We could also do payload searches and depending on how much capacity you have, you can do quite a lot with it.

I want to see a three-dimensional perspective to the data. I don't want to see just an event perspective to the data. I want to be able to identify a user and within clicks, know the whole activity of the user. I don't want to see it in events. I want to see it in the relevant information.

There needs to be a little bit more of investment for enhancing the user interface. That is the main thing, i.e., to make it represent the state of the actual incident response and how you would troubleshoot an incident. It was a major position by IBM when they bought it. But, we see a lot of things being done around the Cognitive side, around the Watson side, but what we're not seeing growth in, is the actual tools interface and usability.

We wanted to be able to see seamless identification of log sources, seamless categorization, normalizing of log sources and seamless alerts. All those things that are required for solution maturing, it has to be able to take data and make sense of it by itself, without a lot of input. Those are the areas that they can really improve it.

It's been stable. Stability hasn't been a problem, as long as you have enough capacity. It's all about sizing it right for the size of your environment.

We drop packets every day. So depending on how our log volume increases or reduces, you see the impact on the packets being dropped.

We've used it and it hasn't been great. It didn't seem like we could get the answers we needed without having to use professional services. For a solution like this, there are little things like, how to tune it, how to upgrade it and that as a customer we don't feel the need to use professional services for. We want to be able to just find a document on how to upgrade and that has been difficult to find.

We didn't have a previous solution. We inherited it as part of another acquisition, of another purchase from IBM and then we scaled it up to meet our capacity.

I was involved in the setup process. We got the basic functionality working, which is not difficult. It's getting the full value out of this solution that was harder.

From an analytics perspective, it's a good tool but you have to have the resources to own it. It's not only about buying it, nor is it about the capacity, but somebody has to care and feed it. It's not one of those you put it in and you can walk away and just consume the data. If you don't care and feed it, you won't get what you need out of it.

They keep on increasing the solutions such as for message synchronization. They have really improved it a lot, with major clustering and the high availability that it can do now. I'm still deep diving into the latest version right now. We have been using this solution for a really long time.

Basically, we are using the messaging part of the solution, collaborating with other technologies on the WebSphere platform. Once you do everything, then you don't really need to worry if the network is available or not. Once you are delivering the message, it's going to be sure delivery for you.

I must check this in depth. I can't really comment on areas with room for improvement, because they already introduced a lot already. I'm still new and need to explore what exactly the latest version has in it. So, only after that I can say what more we need exactly.

I have not had any issues but I'm looking for more collaboration with the Message Broker and DataPower. I feel that the MQ takes a longer time when DataPower is trying to connect to the MQ part, so I'm looking for that. But, I don't have a really good point to bring out right now.

The reason we have been using the solution is because we have it for a really long time, i.e., for more than a decade.

The product's stability is really good. I have recently heard that they're introducing a separate appliance for this. That's going to be a very good step for everyone.

I'm so positive about it's scalability. Other than Walmart, I am working with other companies and I work with the same solution. The scalability is going to be really good and I support it to it's extreme.

IBM technical support is always very great and we have a really good opportunity to talk with them, each and every time that we need support. They give us special attention. So, we're happy with the support provided.

I was involved in all the possibilities. In the past, I have carried out the implementation process from scratch. With my current employer, I have started supporting and building more for the already existing environment.

It's stable and they keep on just increasing the facilities they are providing in regards to clustering and the public supplied options. They're really doing good there.

IBM is doing really good and they're still growing. IBM should keep the work up in the same way and eventually they'll get there.

We have multiple offers out there from competitors, to beat out the open-sources and the competitors comparing with the license cause and the product-support cause. However, they aren't competitive enough and IBM is way above. In the end, you will get what you pay for.

It all depends on the budget. If you have the budget, then I always prefer IBM.
IBM is the more expensive solution out there, but it's worth it.

We use MQ just for transferring messages to and from applications. We get subscriptions, queues, topics and all the app teams love it. It is an easy way to transfer messages, so that's commonly used as a solution for us.

The benefit is, it is easy to use. You subscribe to your queue, they get the message and then they do what they need to with it. It goes on or it ends, either way; it is very easy to use.

From what I understand from the team, mainly just the security piece needs to be improved, but it sounds like they already have that resolved.

Obviously, there's always a bug or two here and there that could be fixed, but they're constantly evolving and improving it.

I know that they're coming out next with IBM MQ Version 9 or 10, so they are always updating the versions. It is a very stable product.

We did experience some security issues with the older versions. As of now, people can log in as root, i.e., whoever wants to log in as root, they can. However, with the new version, they're taking that away.

I have not used any technical support for this solution.

Usually we just go with the IBM products, so I don't think we've looked outside that much for another messaging solution.

From our perspective, we use the IBM suite. They provide great support when we need it. They're always evolving and are very stable, so all around it is a very good suite from IBM.

We use the WebSphere and also use the IBM Maximo Enterprise Management System. The most usable functionality for us is just for tracking work orders and work requests, so that we can provide better customer service.

It has improved the way my organization functions by just being less paper, and more efficient with timing; again, going back to the customer service, with clients being able to close their work orders within a shorter time frame.

I'd like to see a more graphical user interface type of configuration for the application.

Normally, the system is very stable but we've actually just got a call, "Part of it's down!" So, at the moment, we have got a bit of downtime.

The scalability is enormous, which creates issues as well as has benefits. The scalability adds complexity to it. It is scalable, but with some caveats.

We honestly don't utilize IBM for tech support. We have an independent partner that we use for all of our IT support for this product.

It works well, but I think that the overall scale of what you can do with this product adds, again, to the level of complexity, as to what you need in-house for support.

Definitely, you should go out and really try and define your requirements before you actually go out to look at other products. You should know exactly how you're going to use it, and what you hope to get out of this product. Thus, you will have better information to actually go out and compare different products.

The product encourages the idea of asynchronous processing, which means that the sender and receiver are not required to be active and running at the same time. The message will be saved to the receiver queue until the system starts successfully and pulls it for processing. This is typically used in all internet banking functions that receive their data from different bank systems.

• Support for JMS 2.0, because we develop solutions compatible with Java EE7.
• Seamless integration with IBM WebSphere Application Server, which is the most stable application server I ever worked with.
• Installed and configured at Windows, AIX and IBM i mostly the same way and set of commands.

They need to add the ability to send full messages (header + payload) from the MQ Explorer program, not just the payload.

We have not encountered any stability issues.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

I would rate the technical support as good, 8/10.

I previously used ActiveMQ, but I switched to IBM MQ due to the robustness of the solution.

If you are familiar with IBM products, you will find initial setup straightforward.

IBM MQ has a flexible license model based on the Processor Value Unit (PVU) and I recommend it.

We evaluated Active MQ also.

I would advise the potential user to read about security considerations and compliance with security standards.