Google Cloud Pub/Sub vs. IBM MQ

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Google offers Cloud Pub/Sub, a managed message oriented middleware supporting many-to-many asynchronous messaging between applications.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
Google Cloud Pub/SubIBM MQ
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud Pub/SubIBM MQ
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google Cloud Pub/SubIBM MQ
Considered Both Products
Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Chose Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Kafka looks like and ordered queue, there no deliver backoff, so if a message has a problem, it doesn't advance to the next one. Google Cloud Pub/Sub looks like more a SET of messages, and kafka like a LIST. In kafka a same message will repeat instantaneously while it is being …
Chose Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Having used Amazon Web Services SNS & SQS I can say that even if the latter may offer more features, Google Cloud Pub/Sub is easier to use. On the other hand, usage of SNS & SQS as well as documentation and troubleshooting is easier with the AWS solution.
Since we are not using …
Chose Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Google Cloud Pub/Sub as a managed service is significantly more easy to use than a self managed Kafka cluster. As our software was already on GCP it was a no-brainer to use Pub/Sub due to the high level of integration and ease of use with other Google Cloud Platform services.
Chose Google Cloud Pub/Sub
  • Easy to setup Publisher, Subscribers and Message Queue service
  • More Reliable and Easy Scalable with Google Managed services
  • Easily integrated with most of the data sources we typically use for Data Storage and Analysis
Chose Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Amazon SQS has no integration with google play billing whereas Google Cloud Pub/Sub had native integration with google cloud billing, Play billing.
Chose Google Cloud Pub/Sub
We considered several messaging platforms including Kafka and Kinesis but both would have required more developer work and didn't integrate as nicely with our ecosystem. RabbitMQ is another messaging platform I've researched and prototyped on; it also would have required more …
Chose Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Compute Engine is not a direct competitor, but in fact, works well coupled with Pub/Sub.
IBM MQ
Chose IBM MQ
IBM MQ meets enterprise messaging business needs in terms of platform stability, functionality, support, and the list of APIs provided for client app integration, while Rabbit MQ is not an enterprise messaging platform but rather an open-source broker for point-to-point …
Chose IBM MQ
I've also used Apache Kafka and RabbitMQ. Compared to these, IBM MQ offers superior reliability and transactional integrity, making it a better choice for complex, mission-critical enterprise environments where message delivery and security are paramount. We chose IBM MQ for …
Chose IBM MQ
IBM MQ provides support for other products to use. It is a "10" in my opinion and the most critical base for software connectivity.
Chose IBM MQ
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 …
Chose IBM MQ
Apache Kafka may be a better option in comparison with IBM MQ its real-time data streaming and large data payload service. It depends upon the specific requirement and meets those needs. MuleSoft any point platform is very easy to connect to various other types of platforms in …
Chose IBM MQ
Not really applicable on my case as it's a company standard so it has already been chosen by our architecture team
Chose IBM MQ
Both are useful in their own right and we actually use IBM MQ together with PCWP. IBM MQ automates our tasks and saves a lot of tedious work we would otherwise have to do manually.
Chose IBM MQ
Apache Kafka, RabbitMQ and Azure Service Bus
Chose IBM MQ
The product are really similar, basically it depends on where is your infrastructure and your project goals, but talking about this specific product, if your architecture team makes a good design, IBM MQ should do the work and will provide your systems with the capabilities …
Chose IBM MQ
Nothing like MQ . The backbone of the banking industry or any other area . however most of the rivals are light weight and integration is easy .
Chose IBM MQ
I've used Tibco Software. I've found IBM MQ more simplified than these with a good community allowing everyone to quickly learn and understand the various mechanisms.
Chose IBM MQ
We found IBM MQ very easy to get started and quick to learn by the new users with a short learning curve and seamlessly integrates with IBM products, and quick to perform self-service analytics and make informed business decisions. IBM MQ is also very straightforward in …
Chose IBM MQ
The functionalities on IBM MQ are more responsive and functional unlike the above platforms and the training when you are new to IBM MQ is very effective and not much time wasted to become a Pro. The interface security setting and the adjustment of all the features capabilities …
Chose IBM MQ
I have not used similarly featured products in the company. The services that we have received from this platform have always been the best. The troubleshooting models ensure that data flow across the applications is not affected by any external effects, enhancing daily …
Chose IBM MQ
IBM MQ is a leading competitor in this type of software. We are very happy at my organization to be using IBM MQ. It has a great, easy to use interface that works more seamlessly compared to the competitors out there. IBM MQ also seems to offer the best level of security which …
Chose IBM MQ
IBM MQ is very stable and a proven product compared to other Messaging platforms available. Performance was better than WSO2 product and also the RabbitMQ. Though Kafka and IBM MQ is not directly comparable, Kafka is more suited for event based systems and also where there is …
Chose IBM MQ
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.
Chose IBM MQ
I tested/used TIBCO EMS which is built for a proprietary platform. It is focused on providing a messaging platform with TIBCO, therefore in that particular case IBM MQ was ´*not* used, because of the deep integration between TIBCO products.
Also tried/evaluated ActiveMQ but it …
Chose IBM MQ
IBM MQ is the product for inter-business communication for security, flexibility and scalability.
Chose IBM MQ
[We selected] IBM MQ [because it] will help in processing all the transactions. Fail over transactions can be processed. [It allows us to] track of all the transactions. IBM MQ is the best for all the batch transactions.
Chose IBM MQ
We recently changed or migrated to IBM MQ from SONIC MQ and we have zero or negligible message loss. Clusters architecture in IBM MQ is way faster and simpler to understand.
Chose IBM MQ
Amazon Managed Streaming for Apache Kafka (Amazon MSK)
Best Alternatives
Google Cloud Pub/SubIBM MQ
Small Businesses
Amazon SNS
Amazon SNS
Score 8.0 out of 10

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 7.7 out of 10
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 7.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 7.7 out of 10
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 7.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Google Cloud Pub/SubIBM MQ
Likelihood to Recommend
9.8
(0 ratings)
8.7
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
10.0
(0 ratings)
7.7
(0 ratings)
Availability
10.0
(0 ratings)
9.5
(0 ratings)
Performance
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.8
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Configurability
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Google Cloud Pub/SubIBM MQ
Likelihood to Recommend
Using Google Cloud Pub/Sub will mainly depend on the cloud platform used. Our client didn't choose GCP for Google Cloud Pub/Sub, if we went with AWS we would be using SNS/SQS (obviously). However, Google Cloud Pub/Sub is a better solution in the GCP services compared to self-managed solutions such as RabbitMQ for instance (it is managed by GCP and integrates with GCP solutions).
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
  • A hands-off approach to publishing messages and subscribing to topics.
  • Easy to use APIs.
  • Useful, simple UI on cloud console to send messages for debugging, etc.
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
  • It is limited to work with the same platform but with different datasets at the same time, you must request a prior security authentication.
  • It can sometimes lead to unexpected charges, as Pub/Sub will automatically keep on retrying messages continuously, even if failures are due to permanent code-level issues.
  • Message re-deliveries don't apply for ingested services like with Python based client. Push messages tried to be delivered immediately and if your service is busy dealing with some other task, it won't be done OR goes into a queue
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
Likelihood to Renew
It serves all of our purposes in the most transparent way I can imagine, after seeing other message queueing providers, I can only attest to its quality.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
It has many libraries in many languages, google provides either good guides or they're AI generated code libraries that are easy to understand. It has very good observability too.
Read full review
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
I have never faced a single problem in 4 years.
Read full review
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
Performance
It's very fast, can be even better if you use protobuf.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
They have decent documentation, but you need to pay for support. We weren't able to answer all our questions with the documentation and didn't have time to setup support before we needed it so I can't give it a higher rating but I think it tends to be a bit slow unless you're a GCP enterprise support customer.
Read full review
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
  • Easy to setup Publisher, Subscribers and Message Queue service
  • More Reliable and Easy Scalable with Google Managed services
  • Easily integrated with most of the data sources we typically use for Data Storage and Analysis
  • 10k Topics is a good enough number to build and deliver the business use cases
  • Asynchronous and fallback mechanisms are great to ensure parallel delivery of the messages
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
Scalability
You can just plug in consumers at will and it will respond, there's no need for further configuration or introducing new concepts. You have a queue, if it's slow, you plug in more consumers to process more messages: simple as that.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • Pub/Sub has helped avoid data loss improving our customer value prop.
  • Pub/Sub has reduced development time that would otherwise be needed to build a highly scalable queue.
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