Azure Service Bus vs. IBM MQ

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure Service Bus
Score 7.4 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft offers Azure Service Bus as a reliable cloud messaging as a service (MaaS) and simple hybrid integration solution.N/A
IBM MQ
Score 9.6 out of 10
N/A
IBM MQ (formerly WebSphere MQ and MQSeries) is messaging middleware.N/A
Pricing
Azure Service BusIBM MQ
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure Service BusIBM MQ
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure Service BusIBM MQ
Best Alternatives
Azure Service BusIBM MQ
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Anypoint Platform
Anypoint Platform
Score 7.8 out of 10
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 7.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Anypoint Platform
Anypoint Platform
Score 7.8 out of 10
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 7.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Azure Service BusIBM MQ
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.7
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
7.7
(0 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
9.5
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure Service BusIBM MQ
Likelihood to Recommend
If you need a cloud-based service bus or a simple to use queue/topic/routing/pub-sub service, then Azure Service Bus is a very good choice at a reasonable price and performance. Typically on-premise we'd use RabbitMQ because it "just works", but if you're building a "cloud-first" application, then this is the one to go with. It's especially easy to integrate with if you're already embedded in the Microsoft ecosystem.
Read full review
Suited:
  • As we have critical data such as payments which needs to be managed across a number of platforms.
  • MQ ensures guaranteed delivery of this data.
  • Setting up a new application to use MQ is a relatively simple process.
  • To track data both internally and externally you can set MQ up to send back acknowledgement . Very useful if one party say they have not received some data.
Not suited.
  • If an application has a requirement to get information from a database without any concerns of losing data . Using JDBC connecting directly to the database can reduces the number of jumps the application needs to make to get to the database.
  • If an application wants to store information and then send as a large batch file it is not recommended to use MQ. MQ applications should be used for data which needs to be sent immediately. MFT (MQ file transfer) however can utilise MQ for file transfers
Read full review
Pros
  • Acting as a basic queuing service it works very well.
  • One of the best parts is that Azure Service Bus can work over HTTPS which helps in strict firewall situations. There is a performance hit if you choose to use HTTPS.
  • The routing capabilities are quite good when using topics and subscriptions. You can apply filters using a pseudo-SQL-like language though the correlation filters are quick and easy options.
  • Costs are very reasonable at low-ish volumes. If you're processing 10's of millions of messages a month... it may be a different story.
Read full review
  • The documentation is very clear,It is understandable and the support helps to configure it in the best way.
  • Server guidelines make it possible to get the most out of work management. It's broad, we can work with different operating systems, I really recommend using linux.
  • It is highly compatible with systems, brockers, applications, and data accumulation programs, it is possible to configure everything so that after the installation of programs, they can communicate with each other and then throw data to an external program that accumulates it and represents in clear details of steps to follow and make business decisions.
Read full review
Cons
  • The SqlFilter could be a little easier to use, but it's not terrible.
  • The performance while using HTTPS for the connection is a little slow compared to direct connections using AMQP ports.
  • There is a size limit to the message - unlike RMQ for instance, Azure Service Bus caps messages to 256kb on the standard tier.
Read full review
  • I can only speak wonders about the program; I think it is a program with enough serious track record to meet the company's expectations. However, it should be noted that I could suggest that promotional packages be made from time to time for those of us who are already clients of more than one year.
  • In every sense, the program fulfills what it promises, which is to generate a good connection and cohesion of programs to be able to make commitments between them.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
I give it a nine because it has significantly improved my team's data reliability and operational efficiency. Its great security features give us peace of mind, knowing our sensitive data is well protected. While the setup might initially be complex, I believe the long-term benefits far outweigh this hurdle.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
No answers on this topic
As I have said before, the program is stable; I think that is the great reason why it has been maintained for years and days in the company; despite the hard use that we have given it, it has behaved well during both day and night shifts.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
The IBM Support team has offered unmatched insight. Their personnel helped us actualize several things that seemed impossible before. You see, previously we would develop a software solution, but it would take months before rolling it out mostly because we had further build additional specific interfaces. The support team suggested we procure App Connect alongside MQ. Right now, we just hop into the IBM MQ platform, connect the software with AppConnect, and a few modifications are done, then it's ready within a few days.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
RabbitMQ is simple and awesome... but so is Azure Service Bus. Both accomplish the same thing but in different environments. If you're building a cloud-native application - especially one that is serverless by design - Azure Service Bus is the only real choice in Azure. It works well, it's performance, and it's reasonably priced in the Standard tier. From our testing, RMQ is more performant, but it's hard to compare service-based implementations vs RMQ installed on VMs.
Read full review
Kafka is renowned for its impressive throughput, fault tolerance, and real-time data streaming capabilities. Nonetheless, IBM MQ remains the preferred choice due to its unwavering commitment to guaranteed delivery and exceptional reliability. Fault-Tolerant Architectures of IBM MQ which allows active-standby queue managers, to build fault-tolerant architectures that ensure continuity of service in the event of hardware or software failures.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Compared to open-source free software like RMQ, Azure Service Bus does have some costs to it. But the cost is reasonable.
  • Also unlike RMQ, Azure Service Bus doesn't require you to stand up any hardware - so it's very easy to use and saves time/money from that perspective.
Read full review
  • Positive- Message Reliability and Reduced downtime, increases the ROI many times.
  • Positive- Increased stability and enhanced customer experience
  • Negative- cost is very high - Both licensing and integration cost
  • Negative- Learning and training cost of IBM MQ is high as its complex to use and integrate
Read full review
ScreenShots