What users are saying about
24 Ratings
23 Ratings
24 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 7.5 out of 101
23 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.2 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Apache Camel

For basic publish subscribe use cases, Apache Camel is the clear winner
Akmal Muqeeth profile photo

IBM MQ

Well suited for data collection/distribution externally.
Not great for dev-ops internally. Too restrictive and not flexible enough.
Gregory Hanson profile photo

Pros

  • Camel has an easy learning curve. It is fairly well documented and there are about 5-6 books on Camel.
  • There is a large user group and blogs devoted to all things Camel and the developers of Camel provide quick answers and have also been very quick to patch Camel, when bugs are reported.
  • Camel integrates well with well known frameworks like Spring, and other middleware products like Apache Karaf and Servicemix.
  • There are over 150 components for the Camel framework that help integrate with diverse software platforms.
  • Camel is also good for creating microservices.
Surjit Sen profile photo
  • Security is a major improvement in IBM MQ 9. Authorization management became more granular and effective.
  • Programmer friendly. Not only does MQ work great, it provides with MQ specific and JMS-standards access to important functions for the developers to perform better.
No photo available

Cons

  • Some of the documentation is a little sparse. In particular, its TCP-based routes use an underlying Netty server, and the interactions between Netty's decoder capabilities and Apache Camel's routing/handler capabilities can be a little muddy at times. In general it is clear which routes and endpoints are the more frequently used and which haven't been given as much attention.
David McCann profile photo
  • Learning Curve
  • Has a high price
  • Specific configurations
Miguel Angel Merino Vega profile photo

Alternatives Considered

Apache Camel has been the integration framework of choice, but I was not the person to make the decision to use it. Compared to other competing products like Tibco Business Works, etc., it is free and open source and its licensing policy is acceptable to the management of Cox.
Surjit Sen profile photo
IBM MQ is the powerhouse but has a price, while ActiveMQ is free and get things done. If the project warrants it, the use of IBM MQ is highly recommended. But if the project does not need the power, it is better to avoid the cost.
Miguel Angel Merino Vega profile photo

Return on Investment

  • There was certainly a positive impact in terms of code maintainability and ease of implementing new messaging pipelines, however, it's a little difficult to quantify.
David McCann profile photo
  • I dont chew numbers, but I guess that a solid investment faithfully following around 15 years of the product timeline is proof of the confidence it gave/gives and the effect it has performed on the proposed strategies.
No photo available

Pricing Details

Apache Camel

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

IBM MQ

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details