IBM MQ Reviews

Our primary use case for IBM MQ is as an enterprise messaging between applications. So when applications need to transmit data from one to another, they use a messaging broker, the IBM MQ, RabbitMQ and ActiveMQ.

We have found the MQ messaging topologies valuable mainly the published, subscribe and direct messaging. A feature that no other market could offer at the time was data-addressed encryption.

The clustering model can be improved to allow consumers to consume from all brokers simultaneously. Currently, the issue is that they're using a very old clustering model where several of the individual brokers in the same cluster still behave as individuals rather than behaving like a cluster. They call it a cluster, but it's just a group of brokers not working as a cluster. It doesn't properly share the resources between all of the member clusters. Compared to other solutions like Apache Kafka, or RabbitMQ, this is a huge drawback.

We have been using the solution for approximately nine years, deploying it on public, private cloud and on-premises.

The solution is stable.

The solution is not easily scalable. 

Technical support is tough to connect with because the training and documentation from IBM are awful and the technical support from IBM is also poor. So it's easier to solve your issue using Google rather than calling support at IBM.

The initial setup was a bit complex. The installation itself can take anywhere from half an hour to four hours, and the configuration could also take a couple of hours, depending on the complexity of the design.

The solution is expensive.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but the clustering model can be improved. My advice to others considering the solution is to check other products on the market and ensure their product of choice complies with everything they need. They should go for IBM MQ but ensure they carefully read the terms and conditions and view the price beforehand. Alternatively, if they want to go with a more lightweight solution that is just as reliable, they should review RabbitMQ.

We're a service provider. My company provides services to different clients that include financial institutions in the banking sector.

IBM MQ is used for queue messaging. I have to install and configure, the MQ features of listener channels, remote queues, and some transmit queues. We enable these as per customer requirements.

The solution offers very good features, including listener channels, remote queues, and transmit queues.

The solution is stable.

The initial setup isn't overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. 

Technical support is very good.

IBM MQ is not very user-friendly. MQ needs to redesign or add some sort of user-friendly interface in order to offer better performance.

This is a very old solution. Nowadays, some other products are designed to be much more user-friendly as compared to IBM MQ. 

The product needs better administration.

I've been working with the solution for three years. 

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

We've found the technical support to be very good. they tend to match the severity level of the situation. We're quite happy with the way they respond.

While the initial setup is not overly difficult, the user interface is not very user-friendly. 

I cannot speak to the pricing of the product. I can't say if it's overly expensive or reasonably priced as I don't deal directly with licensing. 

We are an IBM partner. 

I'd rate the soluton at an eight out of ten. For the most part, I've been pretty happy with its capabilities. 

Our use case for MQ is for unlimited processing. I'm a solutions architect. 

This is a good and stable product, It assists with our applications and has great message processing with zero loss of messages.

Customer support response times could be improved. 

I've been using this solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Customer service is good although they ask for a lot of information that is time-consuming and slows down the process. I'd like to see some improvements in that area. 

The initial setup is very easy. Deployment took a few hours and required a three-person team to implement. 

I recommend this solution and rate it eight out of 10.