The main use cases with IBM MQ recently would be more of a publish and subscribe mechanism where we have multiple subscribers for the same data which is getting published and that's where we have utilized it.

However, we are moving away from it because it has limited options for scaling up and down.

Additionally, the licensing was one of the factors since it was a licensed copy and it cost us whenever we needed to scale up and down. That's where we are moving to Apache-based services such as Kafka.

The best features of IBM MQ were stability and straightforward application functionality. It has vendor support, which was a significant advantage. In case of any production issues, we definitely get vendor support, whereas with Kafka and others, we have to rely on open community and our research.

We have utilized high availability with IBM MQ through clustering in place, which was in the cloud. It was always available for us and worked very effectively. The only issue we encountered was related to scaling up and down, which required installing additional servers from a hardware perspective.

Regarding IBM MQ's transactional integrity and maintaining data consistency, it performs effectively and I never faced any issues with respect to transactions or data loss.

The management tools come along with Universal Messaging, so explicit implementation of other tools isn't necessary.

IBM MQ comes with all the necessary encryption options and security features that we need.

The main differences between these two products, both pros and cons, in my opinion, mainly concern the scale up and scale down capabilities, which are more impacting us.

Apart from that, I don't see any issues.

I have dealt with this product, IBM MQ Universal Messaging, for close to four years now. Previously it was Software AG before being taken over by IBM.

It has vendor support, which was a significant advantage. In case of any production issues, we definitely get vendor support, whereas with Kafka and others, we have to rely on open community and our research.

IBM MQ has limitations regarding scaling options. The licensing costs associated with scaling up and down were significant, which is why we are moving to Apache-based services such as Kafka.

The main differences between these two products primarily concern the scale up and scale down capabilities, which are more impacting us. Apart from that, I don't see any issues.

I would rate their support as nine out of ten so far.

Positive

We are moving away from it because it has limited options for scaling up and down. The licensing was one of the factors since it was a licensed copy and it cost us whenever we needed to scale up and down. That's where we are moving to Apache-based services such as Kafka.

I work as an integration architect who helps integrate applications, handling data passing to SAP CRM, SaaS-based applications, databases, or Databricks applications. In integration, I am familiar with IBM MQ and Kafka. Regarding IBM MQ, it is IBM Universal Messaging tool, which is similar to what MQ is. I have rated this solution 9 out of 10.

I work with both IBM MQ and WebSphere Application Server. I don't want to say I'm an expert at either one of them, but I manage an infrastructure team that has both of these technologies in the infrastructure.

IBM MQ is basically used in applications that are part of the ACE product. It's also used a lot for my clients' workload that comes from B2B, and there are some MQ B2B connections that come in, so we use it for that. The two main uses are for ACE and for B2B from external clients.

The best thing about IBM MQ solution is that it's guaranteed delivery and it's fast. Those are the two big advantages.

The transactional integrity of IBM MQ in maintaining data consistency is good. We haven't had any issues in four to five years.

I'm not sure if we've utilized IBM MQ's high availability. Our MQ VMs are set up in clusters, and I think our queue managers are set up in pairs. However, I don't know if we actually use any specific high availability features of IBM MQ that are out of the box. We have it architected with high availability because we use F5 load balancers, and everything about our architecture is highly available.

I haven't personally used the management tools with IBM MQ, but we do have them, and our middleware folks leverage them. I can't really comment on them because I don't use them myself. I don't think the management tools help optimize message flows, and I'm not really aware of how they help in this.

I'm not familiar with dynamic routing for IBM MQ.

The only issue I've had with IBM MQ in the last couple of years is that whenever there is a delta in the CPU consumption of a VM that MQ is housed on, occasionally we get those VMs that power off and power on. I'm not even sure if that's a problem with Linux or a problem with IBM MQ, but that's the only issue we've had with them. Otherwise, they're completely stable.

I would rate the stability of IBM MQ probably a nine or above. It's pretty good.

IBM MQ scales just fine. We've got 12 VMs running, and it's very easy to scale.

IBM has always been good with technical support, so I would rate them a seven or an eight.

Positive

We haven't used any other message queue software before choosing IBM MQ, as it's been our messaging software.

From what I understand, the pricing or licensing of IBM MQ is a one-time charge and then a yearly license fee. We pay about 6-7K per CPU and probably about 2 to 3K per year for each CPU licensed. It's not cheap.

Everything that we have comes in as TLS, so IBM MQ's encryption doesn't really play in because everything we have that comes in from the outside world is TLS. On a scale of one to ten, I rate IBM MQ an eight.

With IBM MQ, the main use case is for applications in online banking. We use it within the banking industry. IBM MQ is a choice to create a relation between the Mainframe and distributed servers, allowing applications running on Linux or Windows to interface with Mainframe applications and enable more development of easier and open applications in a distributed environment. This means we can develop more applications that are easier to use.

I work with CICs, Workload Manager, and DB2 mainly. I have experience with IBM MQ. We mainly use clusters at the Windows level or Linux level, and in the Mainframe, we have multiple paths and different lines of connectivity transmission to assess the impact of IBM MQ's high-availability configurations on our system's resilience.

We use advanced security features such as SSH for encryption and authentication mechanisms. The security features help protect our messaging data by encrypting the transmission and ensuring authentication for connection.

The customer service or technical support from IBM is not as good as we expected; it could be better. They don't meet our standards due to the timing to get a person with knowledge.

We use some IBM solutions hosted on AWS as a cloud provider.

The initial setup of IBM MQ is reasonable, just as we were expecting, and we were on time for that project.

The maintenance for IBM MQ is good to be once a year; that's the best.

We mainly use clusters at the Windows level or Linux level, and in the Mainframe, we have multiple paths and different lines of connectivity transmission to assess the impact of IBM MQ's high-availability configurations on our system's resilience.

The customer service or technical support from IBM is not as good as we expected; it could be better. I rate them a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. They don't meet our standards due to the timing to get a person with knowledge.

Positive

I don't really know the main differences between IBM MQ and other messaging queue solutions because it has been my natural choice, coming from Mainframe z/OS.

The initial setup of IBM MQ is reasonable, just as we were expecting, and we were on time for that project.

In the setup, there are mainly two persons involved, but others from different areas are also involved, making it more than just those two.

I currently work with IBM, but we are also using other vendors such as BMC and Logon for specific backup solutions from Mainframe.

My main experience is with IBM Mainframe. I do not have experience with their IBM QRadar. AWS is not our main cloud provider for IBM solutions. I am not very experienced with cloud, but we do use object storage, which is cloud or on-prem for example.

I don't remember specific examples at this moment, but if you contact me in two days, I will probably be able to refresh my memory as I'm currently focused on the capacity and performance issues of the system. I don't have thoughts on IBM MQ's pricing since I work in the support area and I'm not related to the purchasing process.

My company mainly provides services to the banking area but also sells many products, including IBM and open system solutions, such as storage. My company's name is Telcos, spelled T-A-L-C-O-S.

I am very interested in providing a review for the IBM Workload Automation based on my recent experience with it. I am still working with Workload Automation and probably have a project related to this support, but I have switched to focusing more on performance issues at the moment. I used to be more focused on Workload Automation, but now I have shifted my project to banking application performance and capacity.

I still work with IBM solutions in the other area, maintaining contact with AWS that relates to Workload Automation. I deal with banking services in general performance, mainly related to recovery, backup solutions, and CPU utilization. I have experience with IBM ProtecTIER, specifically the ProtecTIER, and not Tivoli. I do not remember experiencing Spectrum. I do not have experience with Spectrum Protect.

I have experience with backup and recovery, particularly on the Mainframe side, but not with HSM. HSM is more related to the Mainframe, and while I don't have recent experience, my focus has shifted to performance areas in z/OS, especially solutions relating to backups and disaster recovery.

We move data from Mainframe to the cloud. BMC is one of the companies I refer to, along with Logon. Logon is spelled L-O-G-O-N. Logon is based in Israel.

Overall, I would rate IBM MQ an 8 out of 10.

We use it for payment processing and to send these payments abroad in another country.

We use it for the production environment, and we consider it stable enough, which is why we continue to use this product.

The biggest advantage is that it's a reliable enough product which we use, and it's a highly documented product. We can learn it slowly, so we have experienced users and experienced staff to use this product.

We suppose it's secure because we use secure tools within the frame of this product, such as TLS 1.3 and so on. Its scalability is enough for our purposes, and that's all we can say about it.

Currently, we have some disadvantages; it's a bit difficult to use IBM ID to access support from the IBM site. To get nice support from IBM, we need to use IBM ID, and it's a bit complicated to integrate it with IBM support.

Support can be better because sometimes we need explanations for some behaviors of the product, and it's not easy to reach the proper person in IBM support.

They could add some new features into IBM MQ to make it better. A graphical user interface in addition to MQ Explorer could be useful, but we are satisfied with MQ Explorer as well.

We have been using it in general for about 10 years.

We have some experience with installations, and it's difficult. We need to state that it requires some experience and knowledge. We have required experience, having used this product about 10 years.

Its scalability is enough for our purposes, and that's all we can say about it.

Support can be better because sometimes we need explanations for some behaviors of the product, and it's not easy to reach the proper person in IBM support.

Positive

I cannot compare with other products, and I cannot give exact answers regarding whether it's expensive or cheap, as I don't know the costs of other products in this group. For us, we pay for it, and we rely on this product, and it's okay.

It's possible to get some training, but the cost of this learning is expensive. It costs some money, but we have required experience and knowledge because we have been using it for about 10 years.

It's possible to get some training, but the cost of this learning is expensive. It costs some money, but we have required experience and knowledge because we have been using it for about 10 years.

I cannot compare with other products, and I cannot give exact answers regarding whether it's expensive or cheap, as I don't know the costs of other products in this group. For us, we pay for it, and we rely on this product, and it's okay.

I'm just a user, representing Raiffeisen Bank, and it's clear.

We use WebSphere MQ, which includes some tools such as ActiveMQ, IBM MQ, and VMware.

Today, we don't use AI for our purposes, but if we find any useful AI features for this product, we might use them later because we can't evaluate their reliability for our needs right now.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate IBM MQ a nine.

Primarily used for IBM MQ data transfers.

As a user of IBM MQ, I use it for data transfers, configuring the queues and similar tasks. I do not work with it beyond those functions.

It is primarily used for data transfers within the applications. That encompasses the most critical features and functionality for me.

The biggest advantage of IBM MQ is its reliability.

IBM MQ is reliable and includes important security aspects.

IBM MQ is still in a premature state. It is in a research phase, so it is very early to make specific suggestions about improvements.

The stability of IBM MQ rates at eight or nine out of ten.

The scalability of IBM MQ rates at eight out of ten.

Scalability and sustainability could be examples for IBM MQ.

Any product of this nature should be scalable and sustainable. It depends on how the product evolves, how it has been implemented in the organization, and how we manage it.

I found the information about IBM MQ on the website to be good.

I am just a user of IBM MQ conducting research and reviewing it.

Being a user of IBM MQ, I do not have detailed knowledge about the specifics. The support team handles those aspects.

We are informed about issues with IBM MQ periodically. However, we do not necessarily receive complete information about why certain things were not working, as it is outside of my purview.

From a sustainability perspective, there might be room for consideration regarding IBM MQ. Otherwise, it performs well.

My final rating for IBM MQ is nine out of ten points, where ten is the best.

The use case for IBM MQ is for message transfer between banks and SWIFT, and message transfers within applications in banks. These are the most used cases.

IBM MQ is more reliable and secure than other software. There is a saying that for the last 30 years IBM MQ has never been hacked. It is more secure and reliable. Whenever the configuration is done, I do not have to touch it again. It works fine, it is stable, and its communication is to the point and accurate. All performance-related aspects are better.

Performance-wise, it is scalable, and other features such as DR, DC, replication, and active passive mode are complex to configure, but it remains scalable.

The pricing model for IBM MQ could be more flexible for clients.

Regarding improvements in IBM MQ, I cannot specify any issues because whatever requirements exist, I find them available since it is a very old product with all necessary features. I am not encountering any missing features in IBM MQ.

Feature-wise, everything required is available in IBM MQ. The pricing is consistently high, which is known in the market. In that scenario, pricing could be more competitive compared to other vendors.

The pricing model for IBM MQ could be more flexible for clients.

I have been working with IBM MQ for 3 years.

I would rate the stability for IBM MQ as nine out of ten.

While not easy, IBM MQ is scalable. Performance-wise, it is scalable, and other features such as DR, DC, replication, and active passive mode are complex to configure, but it remains scalable.

I would give technical support from IBM an eight out of ten.

The response time for IBM MQ support could be better because when we are using IBM MQ and something goes wrong, support is required as the resource availability of the IBM product is very limited.

Positive

Some of my customers are now using IBM MQ. Previously they were using Kafka, but after using IBM MQ, they decided to move to IBM MQ and remove Kafka because IBM MQ is more reliable and more performance friendly than Kafka.

The initial setup for IBM MQ is very simple.

For security, scalability, and performance, I suggest IBM MQ. However, customers have budget constraints and other considerations including application portfolio and requirements. There are alternatives such as Apache MQ and RabbitMQ. The choice depends on the budget, requirements, and priorities regarding security, performance, or budget. We can suggest the best solution, but if the customer cannot afford it, they might opt for the free option, RabbitMQ, or Apache MQ. It ultimately depends on the price and application needs.

It depends on the application regarding what company size can use IBM MQ. If a small or medium company uses a complex application where security is measured, with multiple applications, they can use it. For enterprise level, it is mandatory if they require it because IBM MQ is a requirement product, not a day-to-day product. If you want the best solution then choose IBM MQ. I cannot suggest that small companies need it and enterprise companies do not need it. I rate this solution nine out of ten.

Positive