There could be greater flexibility and agility in service creation for the product. As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordingly.
The product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor. The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced. Our company has to buy four to eight previews of the product for $4,90,000. For the aforementioned price involving limited transactions, our customers are often shocked and prefer to adopt an alternate middleware tool such as MuleSoft.
When choreography is necessary, the product doesn't work. IBM has to take a different approach to maintain the software as a service solution. The price could also be lowered.
If you want to connect to the database, it provides solutions in India, but you have to purchase it separately. They are not mature enough and we have difficulties using them. They are expensive and not worth the money we are spending on them. I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. Scalability needs improvement, it was easy to scale before microservices and Docker. Technical support is good but they could have a better response time. I think that they should provide us with some kind of capabilities that can be deployed. For example, if they have integration nodes that can be deployed separately instead of having a new, big server that has different components, to give us the capabilities to deploy everything on our own instead of building them up together. It would benefit us when it comes to scaling and building.
Solution Designer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Oct 4, 2020
I haven't completely tested the solution. I have a CMM BPM background, and recently moved to work on this so I'm only now getting exposure in this particular area. It's difficult to comment at this early stage but I find the installation configuration is quite difficult compared to other solutions. The other issue is that I don't have cloud, and we can't get any cloud where IBM is moving. I'm not sure whether we can move this application to the Azure or AWS cloud solutions. It's a major challenge and we still haven't had any kind of official documentation from IBM as to how we can move forward on that.
Enterprise Architect at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Aug 9, 2020
My biggest complaint about this product is the price. The cost is a significant reason why we're looking at other products right now. Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved. Significant improvement is needed, especially when dealing with a tier-one client. They are just now looking at Cast for their streams product, so they are a bit behind when it comes to technology. I no longer look to IBM for new technology.
Integration Architect/Practice Manager at Saudi Business Machines - SBM
Real User
May 4, 2020
The size of the container used in the deployment is still large and I think it should be improved and become lighter. It would be useful to make container deployment easier .
Independent Consultant - IT Technician Level 4 / Projects Technician at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Consultant
Sep 25, 2019
The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is. The administration console is ok because it's used by the administration team or the technical team. The external interfaces have limitations compared to vertical technologies such as JS frameworks like React or Angular that have lots of capability for UI and UX design. This tool can be challenging when you use it for a really complex solution, or if you try to use it for a purpose other than what it is designed for. For example, using it as a BPM tool will be challenging.
IBM WebSphere Message Broker provides reliable data integration and effective management of diverse message formats. It excels in stability and scalability, supporting complex integration needs with ease, making it suitable for industries like banking and healthcare.IBM WebSphere Message Broker is a robust tool for data integration, favored for its performance with large data volumes and its ability to handle protocol transformations. It features a graphical interface that simplifies...
There could be greater flexibility and agility in service creation for the product. As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordingly.
The product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor. The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced. Our company has to buy four to eight previews of the product for $4,90,000. For the aforementioned price involving limited transactions, our customers are often shocked and prefer to adopt an alternate middleware tool such as MuleSoft.
Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement.
The solution can add container engines such as docker. The solution is very expensive and has room for improvement.
The solution can be improved by making the product lightweight, as it is currently a weighty product.
There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data.
When choreography is necessary, the product doesn't work. IBM has to take a different approach to maintain the software as a service solution. The price could also be lowered.
If you want to connect to the database, it provides solutions in India, but you have to purchase it separately. They are not mature enough and we have difficulties using them. They are expensive and not worth the money we are spending on them. I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. Scalability needs improvement, it was easy to scale before microservices and Docker. Technical support is good but they could have a better response time. I think that they should provide us with some kind of capabilities that can be deployed. For example, if they have integration nodes that can be deployed separately instead of having a new, big server that has different components, to give us the capabilities to deploy everything on our own instead of building them up together. It would benefit us when it comes to scaling and building.
I haven't completely tested the solution. I have a CMM BPM background, and recently moved to work on this so I'm only now getting exposure in this particular area. It's difficult to comment at this early stage but I find the installation configuration is quite difficult compared to other solutions. The other issue is that I don't have cloud, and we can't get any cloud where IBM is moving. I'm not sure whether we can move this application to the Azure or AWS cloud solutions. It's a major challenge and we still haven't had any kind of official documentation from IBM as to how we can move forward on that.
My biggest complaint about this product is the price. The cost is a significant reason why we're looking at other products right now. Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved. Significant improvement is needed, especially when dealing with a tier-one client. They are just now looking at Cast for their streams product, so they are a bit behind when it comes to technology. I no longer look to IBM for new technology.
The size of the container used in the deployment is still large and I think it should be improved and become lighter. It would be useful to make container deployment easier .
The solution overall could be simplified. Everything is too complex.
The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is. The administration console is ok because it's used by the administration team or the technical team. The external interfaces have limitations compared to vertical technologies such as JS frameworks like React or Angular that have lots of capability for UI and UX design. This tool can be challenging when you use it for a really complex solution, or if you try to use it for a purpose other than what it is designed for. For example, using it as a BPM tool will be challenging.