2011 forrester esb wave

8/3/2019 2011 Forrester Esb Wave

1/15

Making Leaders Successul Every Day

Ap 25, 2011

The Feste Wave: EtepseSeve Bs, Q2 2011b Ke Ve

Appat Devepet & Deve Pessas
http://www.forrester.com/


2/15

2011 Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Forrester, Forrester Wave, RoleView, Technographics, TechRankings, and Total EconomicImpact are trademarks o Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property o their respective owners. Reproduction or sharing o thiscontent in any orm without prior written permission is strictly prohibited. To purchase reprints o this document, please email [email protected]. For additional reproduction and usage inormation, see Forresters Citation Policy located at www.orrester.com. Inormation is

based on best available resources. Opinions refect judgment at the time and are subject to change.

F Appat Devepet & Deve Pessas

ExEcuTiVE SummAry

In Forresters 109-criteria evaluation o both commercial and open source enterprise service bus (ESB)

vendors, we ound that Soware AG, ibco Soware (ibco), Oracle, and Progress Soware are Leaders

because o their broad unctionality across the architecture, orchestration, mediation, connection,

and change and control areas o this evaluation. wo open source ESBs rom FuseSource and WSO2

also made the Leader category, as did two separate ESB products rom IBM. In addition, two other

open source products rom MuleSo and Red Hat scored as Strong Perormers along with a third ESBproduct rom IBM.

TABlE oF conT EnTSESBs Provide A Lot O Iteratio Capabilit

I A Small Packae

ESBs Ae i Hgh Dead

ESBs W Pa A ieasg iptat re

i Spptg itegat Ad SoA

The ESB maket ladsape

Eterprise Service Bs Evalatio Overview

Bes Fs o ce itegat Feates

Ad Sppt F SoA

The Evaated Veds Pvde Fdata

itegat Sppt

The Forrester ESB Evalatio

Vedor Profles

leades Pvde The mst-cpehesve

Sppt F ESB Feates

Stg Pees: meSt, iBm WESB, Ad

red Hat

Spplemetal Material

noTES & rESourcESDg Deebe 2010 ad Jaa

2011, Feste dted befgs ad

destat evews wth fve ea

ad pe se ESB pdt veds:

FseSe, iBm, meSt, oae, Pgess

Stwae, red Hat, Stwae AG, Tb Stwae,

ad WSo2. We as dted tevews

wth e tha twet stes wh aeet sg the evaated pdts. Dg

the past 24 ths, we have as spke wth

hdeds stes eated t the ESB

peetat atvtes.

Related Research Docmets

The Evt o itegat Ateatves

Feba 4, 2011

The Feste Wave: cpehesve

itegat Sts, Q4 2010

nvebe 9, 2010

The ESB reeee Ahtete mde

mah 26, 2010

Ap 25, 2011

The Feste Wave: Etepse Seve Bs,Q2 2011Stwae AG, Tb Stwae, oae, Ad Pgess Stwae lead The Wab Ke Vollmer

wth mke Gp ad Sade rse

2

6

8

10

12
http://www.forrester.com/go?docid=58460&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56007&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56007&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56731&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56731&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56007&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56007&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=58460&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/


3/15

2011, Feste reseah, i. repdt PhbtedAp 25, 2011

The Feste Wave: Etepse Seve Bs, Q2 2011


2

ESBS PROVIDE A LOT OF InTEgRATIOn CAPABILITy In A SMALL PACKAgE

At their core, ESBs are integration tools. Tey provide broad capabilities in several key unctional

areas such as connectivity, message transormation and routing, transaction mediation, basic process

orchestration, and security that are critical to supporting eective integration capability. ESBs are also

very well suited or supporting the implementation o a service-oriented architecture (SOA) due to

their ability to support the creation and use o a wide range o technical and business services.

ESBs have evolved quickly over the past several years and currently provide a wide range o

unctionality that was previously restricted to only high-end integration tools.1 However, the high-

end integration tool providers have not been standing still either, so there is still a signicant gap

between the unctionality an ESB provides and the unctionality a comprehensive integration

solution provides (see Figure 1).2

ESBs provide unctionality that is bundled into ve unctional areas as ollows:

Architecture. Te main issues covered in this area are support or ault tolerance, scalabilityand throughput, the ability to ederate with other ESBs, the supported topologies, and eatures

supporting extensibility.

Connection. Te key eatures in this group include support or a wide range o messagingstandards, communications protocols, and connectivity alternatives.

Mediation. Tis group deals with key requirements related to dynamic provisioning oresources, transormation and mapping support, transaction management, policy metamodel

eatures, registry support, and service-level agreement coordination.

Orchestration. Tis layer provides lightweight orchestration o services and more-robustbusiness process execution language (BPEL) and/or business process modeling notation

(BPMN) support.

Change and control. Te main components in this group are design tooling, lie-cyclemanagement, technical monitoring, and security.

Te ESB Forrester Wave evaluation spreadsheet explores all o these unctional areas in depth as

well as scores evaluated vendors capabilities within each.


4/15

2011, Feste reseah, i. repdt Phbted Ap 25, 2011



3

Fire 1 The ESB reeee Ahtete mde

ESBs Are I Hih Demad

Respondents to Forresters Q1 2011 Global Application/B2B Integration Online Survey, who

represent a sampling o client enterprises, indicated a high level o interest in ESBs (see Figure 2).

Te survey included 167 application development and enterprise architecture personnel located inthe North American, Europe, and Asia Pacic regions. Te results show that 13% o the respective

organizations were piloting an ESB, another 13% had already implemented an ESB (but were not

expanding urther), and an additional 32% were expanding their usage o an ESB. All together, 58%

o the respondents were using an ESB, and another 32% were considering an ESB. Only 7% o the

respondents indicated that they were not interested in this technology.

Forrester has also experienced a 20% year-over-year increase in the volume o client inquiries

regarding ESBs. Te most common questions we receive are: 1) How do the leading commercial

ESB products compare?; 2) What are the leading open source ESB products?; and 3) What

should we consider beore deciding to go with an open source ESB?

Te broad capabilities ESB products provide have made them a popular choice or meeting general

integration needs and supporting eorts to implement a service-oriented architecture (see Figure 3).

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.58074

Change and control

Design tooling

Life-cyclemanagement

Security

Technicalmonitoring

Orchestration

Lightweight orchestration BPEL support

Mediation

Dynamic provisioning Policy metamodel Registry

Transformation and mapping Transaction management SLA management

Connection

Messaging Routing Connectivity

Architecture

Availability Federation Topology Extensibility


5/15




4

Fire 2 Sve respdets repted Hgh iteest leves i ESB

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.58074Source: Q1 2011 Global Application/B2B Integration Online Survey

Base: 167 application development managers and enterprise architects

What is your enterprises interest level in ESBs?

Not interested

Considering

Piloting

Implemented but not expanding

Expanding/upgrading

Dont know

7%

32%

13%

13%

32%

3%

Fire 3 Ppa ESB use cases ide Geea itegat needs Ad SoA ipeetats

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.58074

Source: Q1 2011 Global Application/B2B Integration Online Survey

Base: 74 application development managers and enterprise architects who are using an ESB(multiple responses accepted)

What functions are you using an ESB for?

Routing

Messaging

Data transformation

Transaction mediation

Creation of services

BPEL-based orchestration

BPEL-based development

95%

92%

77%

58%

35%

28%

14%


6/15




5

Te vast majority o respondents using an ESB are using it or messaging (92%) and routing

(95%). In addition, a high percentage o ESB users are also using them or data transormation

(77%). ESB use cases or data transormation are distinct rom those typically ascribed to extract,

transorm, and load (EL) middleware. ESBs are making rapid, inline transormations easiblewhen maintaining a near-real-time service level or inormation delivery; the ESB approach to

transormations makes them inherently less complex and comprehensive than the transormations

possible when taking a more batch-oriented EL approach.

Te balance o the use cases includes transaction mediation (58%), creation o services (35%), BPEL-

based orchestration (28%), and BPEL-based development (14%). Creation o services and BPEL

usage scenarios are requently examples o composition whereby the ESB delivers a larger-grained,

aggregate service interace, which is composed through the ESB rom multiple ner-grained services.

ESBs Will Pla A Icreasil Importat Role I Spporti Iteratio Ad SOA

Te increasing capability o both commercial and open source ESBs and their lower price points

compared with comprehensive integration solutions (CISes) will continue to drive high interest in

these products rom organizations that are modernizing their application development inrastructure.

ESBs provide a lightweight option or increasing integration capability that enables rms to:

Begin with a lower-cost integration solution. ESBs provide strong support or SOA and manyother enterprise application integration challenges, and they are a logical rst step in obtaining

packaged integration technology.

Consider the potential o an open source ESB. I price is an overriding concern and yourorganization has sucient internal technical resources, an open source solution may beappropriate. Open source ESBs scored higher in this evaluation than in the last one because

o generally increased unctionality. Open source ESB vendors made signicant progress in

catching up with commercial ESB providers and now provide a viable option or a growing

number o enterprises. However, open source ESB customer reerences cited somewhat higher

levels o support concerns, so you must ensure that the necessary support skills are available

internally or via a support contract with the specic open source ESB provider.

Upgrade to a more robust solution as the need arises. Whether you start with a low-costcommercial ESB or an open source ESB, upgrading is easible, as ESB unctionality is at the

oundation o all CIS alternatives, making the upgrade path less o an issue than it mightotherwise be. Bottom line, i you are using an ESB, it does not require a major eort to move

to the same vendors CIS. However, moving rom one vendors ESB to another vendors CIS

would be more complex, as it would have an impact on program code and would necessitate re-

authoring most conguration and policy metadata.


7/15




6

The ESB Market Ladscape

Te ESB market consists o a number o commercial ESB products rom vendors including IBM,

Oracle, Progress Soware, Soware AG, and ibco along with a growing list o open source options

rom organizations such as FuseSource, MuleSo, Red Hat, and WSO2. Tis market has changed

signicantly since the 2006 time rame: Some o the leading ESB providers rom that day ailed

to gain a sure oothold in the market (i.e., Fiorano Soware echnologies and PolarLake), while

others have been acquired and consumed into the product lines o larger vendors (or example, Iona

echnologies went to Progress Soware, and Workday acquired Cape Clear).

Te inability o many o the earlier vendors to make it in this space does not mean that the ESB

market is losing steam. On the contrary, todays ESB market is more vibrant than ever, with many

organizations planning to implement an ESB. Architects are now more cognizant o ESBs value

proposition than they were ve years ago, and the market is growing accordingly. Indeed, the

implementation o ESB technology is a high priority or many enterprises, and other vendors can beexpected to enter this market and attempt to gain some o the market share. One example o this is

the ESB that alend plans to announce in the near uture.

EnTERPRISE SERVICE BuS EVALuATIOn OVERVIEW

o assess the state o the enterprise service bus market and see how the vendors stack up against

each other, Forrester evaluated the strengths and weaknesses o top ESB vendors.

Bers Focs O Core Iteratio Featres Ad Spport For SOA

Aer examining past research, user need assessments, and vendor and expert interviews, we

developed a comprehensive set o evaluation criteria. We evaluated vendors against 109 criteria,which we grouped into three high-level buckets:

Current oering. We looked at the breadth o each vendors ESB oering across 79 criteria,including the major categories o architecture, orchestration, mediation, connection, and change

and control.

Strategy. We looked at the strength o each vendors strategy across 15 criteria, includingproduct strategy, solution cost, strategic alliances, and customer reerence checks.

Market presence. o evaluate each vendors penetration in the ESB market, we evaluated 15criteria, including installed base, new customers, annual ESB revenue, and delivery ootprint.

The Evalated Vedors Provide Fodatioal Iteratio Spport

Forrester included nine vendors and 11 individual ESB products in its assessment: FuseSource, IBM

(three products), MuleSo, Oracle, Progress Soware, Red Hat, Soware AG, ibco, and WSO2.

Each o these vendors has (see Figure 4):


8/15




7

Foundational integration eatures. All evaluated products oer eatures including integratedsupport or messaging, routing, data transormation, transaction mediation, and security.

Dynamic provisioning. Each o these products has the ability to dynamically allocateadditional resources to support processing needs.

Orchestration. Te evaluated vendors support creating and executing lightweight process fowsor itineraries and more-robust orchestrations based on BPEL and/or BPMN.

An ESB product that was available in the marketplace as o October 1, 2010. Each vendoralso had to provide reerence customers who are actively using the product.

Fire 4 Evaated Veds: Pdt iat Ad Seet ctea

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.

Vendor

FuseSource

IBM

MuleSoft

Oracle

Progress Software

Red Hat

Software AG

Tibco Software

WSO2

Product evaluated

Fuse ESB

WebSphere Enterprise Service Bus (WESB)

WebSphere Enterprise Service Bus RegistryEdition (WESBRE)

WebSphere Message Broker (WMB)

Mule ESB

Oracle Service Bus

Sonic ESB

JBoss ESB

webMethods ESB Platform

ActiveMatrix Service Bus

WSO2 ESB

Product version

evaluated

4.0

7

7

7

3

11 g R1

8

5.0.2

8.0

3.0.1

3.0

Version

release date

October 2008

December 2009

October 2010

October 2009

September 2010

April 2010

March 2010

July 2010

December 2009

August 2010

May 2010

Vendor selection criteria

The vendor provides an enterprise service bus product that supports features to provide capabilities in

the following areas: architecture (extensibility and federation), connection (messaging and routing),mediation (dynamic provisioning, transformation, and transaction management), orchestration, andsecurity.

The vendor has been determined to be one of the leading commercial or open source providers of ESBtechnology.

The product version has been released and was in use in the marketplace as of October 1, 2010.


9/15




8

THE FORRESTER ESB EVALuATIOn

Te evaluation uncovered a market in which many amiliar aces continue to thrive (see Figure 5):

Soware AG, Tibco, Oracle, Progress Soware, and IBM are Leaders or ESB as well as CIS. Tese ve vendors achieved Leader status in the 2009 ESB Forrester Wave evaluation and in the

2010 CIS Forrester Wave evaluation, thus garnering the top position in the integration soware

provider market.

FuseSource and WSO2 also scored as Leaders. FuseSource and WSO2 also scored highly inmost o the evaluated areas; each o these vendors products represents a solid ESB solution

that would be a good choice or meeting many enterprise integration and service-oriented

architecture requirements.

MuleSo, IBMs WESB, and Red Hat products scored as Strong Perormers. Tough MuleSo,IBMs WebSphere ESB (WESB), and Red Hat products were missing some eatures, they stillmade the Strong Perormer category. Tese products lack the same level o ESB support as the

Leaders, but in most cases the dierences were small. Consequently, each o these products may

also be a very good t in many enterprises, depending on the specics o the situation.

Tis evaluation o the enterprise service bus market is intended to be a starting point only. We

encourage readers to view detailed product evaluations and adapt the criteria weightings to t their

individual needs through the Forrester Wave Excel-based vendor comparison tool.


10/15




9

Fire 5 Feste Wave: Etepse Seve Bs, Q2 11


Go online to download

the Forrester Wave tool

for more detailed product

evaluations, feature

comparisons, and

customizable rankings.

Risky

Bets Contenders Leaders

Strong

Performers

StrategyWeak Strong

Current

offering

Weak

Strong

IBM (WESBRE)

Red Hat

IBM (WMB)

WSO2MuleSoft

IBM (WESB)

FuseSource

Progress Software

Oracle

Software AG

Tibco Software


11/15




10

Fire 5 Feste Wave: Etepse Seve Bs, Q2 11 (ct.)


CURRENT OFFERING

ESB product details

Availability date

Architecture

Orchestration

Mediation

Connection

Change and control

STRATEGY

Product strategy

Solution cost

Strategic alliances

Customer reference checks

MARKET PRESENCE

Installed base

New customers

Revenue

Delivery footprint

FuseSource

4.60

0.00

0.00

4.88

5.00

3.89

4.70

4.52

3.48

4.20

0.00

1.80

3.00

2.20

2.50

2.00

0.00

2.00

IBM(WESB)

3.68

0.00

0.00

3.92

3.00

3.77

4.60

2.99

3.10

3.60

0.00

5.00

2.00

3.45

3.00

2.50

0.00

5.00

Forresters

Weighting

50%

0%

0%

40%

10%

20%

10%

20%

50%

50%

0%

10%

40%

0%

40%

30%

0%

30%

IBM(WESBRE)

4.10

0.00

0.00

3.92

3.00

4.73

4.60

4.15

3.70

4.00

0.00

5.00

3.00

2.20

1.00

1.00

0.00

5.00

IBM(WMB)

3.88

0.00

0.00

4.20

4.00

2.98

3.88

4.09

3.50

4.40

0.00

5.00

2.00

4.70

5.00

4.00

0.00

5.00

MuleSoft

4.35

0.00

0.00

4.70

2.50

4.14

5.00

4.47

2.78

3.20

0.00

3.80

2.00

1.73

1.50

2.00

0.00

1.75

Oracle

4.74

0.00

0.00

4.58

5.00

4.76

4.60

5.00

4.20

5.00

0.00

5.00

3.00

4.55

5.00

4.00

0.00

4.50

ProgressSoftw

are

4.78

0.00

0.00

5.00

5.00

4.27

4.60

4.84

4.05

4.70

0.00

5.00

3.00

3.23

3.00

3.00

0.00

3.75

RedHat

3.21

0.00

0.00

2.90

2.50

3.98

3.33

3.37

3.05

3.70

0.00

4.00

2.00

1.45

1.00

1.00

0.00

2.50

SoftwareAG

4.89

0.00

0.00

4.88

5.00

4.69

5.00

5.00

4.60

5.00

0.00

5.00

4.00

4.78

5.00

5.00

0.00

4.25

WSO2

TibcoSoftware

4.71

0.00

0.00

5.00

4.00

4.63

4.60

4.60

4.45

4.70

0.00

5.00

4.00

4.63

5.00

5.00

0.00

3.75

4.47

0.00

0.00

4.48

4.00

4.75

4.26

4.49

2.95

4.50

0.00

3.00

1.00

1.03

0.50

1.00

0.00

1.75

All scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).

VEnDOR PROFILES

Leaders Provide The Most-Comprehesive Spport For ESB Featres

Soware AG delivers an easy-to-use ESB. Te webMethods ESB has a long track recordo providing ease o implementation and delivering value to customers. Te CentraSite

registry/repository comes bundled with the ESB. Soware AG has the largest number o ESB

implementations o any o the vendors in this evaluation, and its ESB product integrates wellwith the larger webMethods Suite, including the Soware AG Architecture o Integrated

Inormation Systems (ARIS) business process management (BPM) product. Interviewed

customers were pleased with the unctionality that the product provides.


12/15




11

Tibco provides an enterprise-ready ESB. Te ibco ActiveMatrix Service Bus scored verywell in this evaluation, placing in the Leader category and receiving many strong scores.

According to customer eedback, this product works well either in a standalone environment

or as one o the key components o ibcos comprehensive integration solution oering

(BusinessWorks). Te ibco ActiveMatrix Service Bus is widely used; ibco reported more

than 3,000 active implementations.

Oracle provides an industrial-strength ESB product. Te Oracle Service Bus was already astrong product when it was rst acquired rom BEA Systems a couple o years ago, and Oracle

has continued to add unctionality to this product. It is one o the more widely used ESBs, with

more than 2,600 implementations in use when counting both standalone deployments and

those that take place in the larger Oracle SOA suite.

Progress Soware provides an ESB with a long heritage. Based on the early, market-leadingcapabilities o SonicMQ, the Sonic ESB rst came on the scene in the mid-2000s and has garnereda strong position in this market since that time. Tis product received strong scores in all o the

evaluated areas and has also been tightly integrated into the vendors CIS and BPM solutions.

FuseSource scored well in its frst ESB evaluation. FuseSource was ormed when ProgressSoware spun o this open source eort into a separate organization in mid-2010. Its core

product is the Fuse ESB, which combines eatures rom the Apache ServiceMix ESB, the Apache

Camel integration ramework, the Apache ActiveMQ message broker, and the Apache CXF web

services ramework. As is the case with each o the open source ESB vendors included in this

evaluation, FuseSource reported signicantly ewer production deployments compared with the

commercial vendor ESB products reported deployments.

WSO2 provides a strong, open source ESB. Tis is also Forresters rst evaluation o WSO2sproduct, and the vendor scored well in most o the evaluated areas. While it does have some

marquee customers, it reported signicantly ewer deployments compared with the deployment

levels o the commercial product vendors included in this evaluation.

IBM has two ESB products that made the Leader category. Forresters last ESB evaluationcombined multiple IBM ESB products into a single scoring exercise, thus making it somewhat

dicult or potential buyers to discern key dierences between IBMs oerings. We have

corrected that situation with this Forrester Wave, evaluating each o IBMs three ESB products

separately. wo o them, the WebSphere ESB Registry Edition and the WebSphere Message

Broker, made the Leader category based on their individual scores in this evaluation. While

IBM would not divulge specic numbers, we believe the WebSphere Message Broker to have an

implementation count that would rival those o Soware AG, ibco, and Oracle.


13/15




12

Stro Perormers: MleSot, IBM WESB, Ad Red Hat

MuleSo provides a solid, open source ESB. Te Mule ESB has a solid track record inorganizations that have deployed it into production. MuleSo also has the highest number o

downloads o any open source ESB provider, though it is dicult to measure the real impact

o this activity on production deployments. Tis product scored well in most areas o the

current evaluation.

IBM provides core ESB eatures in the WebSphere ESB. Tis is the last o the three IBMESBs included in this evaluation, and it scored somewhat lower than the other two. Users can

resolve most o this products deciencies by adding the unctionality the WebSphere registry/

repository product provides, and IBM has indicated that its sales eorts ocus on moving

customers to the more-capable WebSphere ESB Registry Edition product. However, or rms

that have already implemented a registry/repository rom another vendor, the lighter-weight

IBM product may actually be a better t.

Red Hat oers a comprehensive SOA solution. Red Hat oers the JBoss ESB and also amore-robust SOA platorm oering. In some cases, clients would benet rom the additional

eatures o the SOA platorm, though in other situations or example, i they have already

implemented those other capabilities in some other way architects may preer the smaller

ootprint o the JBoss ESB. Either way, Red Hat is a strong ESB provider with many satised

customers. In March 2011, Red Hat announced version 5.1 o its SOA platorm. Tis release

provides signicant new eatures that add to the overall unctionality o the product.

SuPPLEMEnTAL MATERIALOlie Resorce

Te online version o Figure 5 is an Excel-based vendor comparison tool that provides detailed

product evaluations and customizable rankings.

Data Sorces used I This Forrester Wave

Forrester used a combination o three data sources to assess the strengths and weaknesses o each

solution:

Vendor surveys. Forrester surveyed vendors on their capabilities as they relate to the evaluation

criteria. Once we analyzed the completed vendor surveys, we conducted vendor calls wherenecessary to gather details o vendor qualications.

Product demos. We asked vendors to conduct demonstrations o their products unctionality. Weused ndings rom these product demos to validate details o each vendors product capabilities.

Customer reerence calls. o validate product and vendor qualications, Forrester alsoconducted reerence calls with at least two o each vendors current customers.


14/15




13

The Forrester Wave Methodolo

We conduct primary research to develop a list o vendors that meet our criteria to be evaluated

in this market. From that initial pool o vendors, we then narrow our nal list. We choose these

vendors based on: 1) product t; 2) customer success; and 3) Forrester client demand. We eliminate

vendors that have limited customer reerences and products that dont t the scope o our evaluation.

Aer examining past research, user need assessments, and vendor and expert interviews, we develop

the initial evaluation criteria. o evaluate the vendors and their products against our set o criteria,

we gather details o product qualications through a combination o lab evaluations, questionnaires,

demos, and/or discussions with client reerences. We send evaluations to the vendors or their review,

and we adjust the evaluations to provide the most accurate view o vendor oerings and strategies.

We set deault weightings to refect our analysis o the needs o large user companies and/or

other scenarios as outlined in the Forrester Wave document and then score the vendors basedon a clearly dened scale. Tese deault weightings are intended only as a starting point, and we

encourage readers to adapt the weightings to t their individual needs through the Excel-based

tool. Te nal scores generate the graphical depiction o the market based on current oering,

strategy, and market presence. Forrester intends to update vendor evaluations regularly as product

capabilities and vendor strategies evolve.

Srve Methodolo

Forrester elded its Q1 2011 Global Application/B2B Integration Online Survey to 167 application

development managers and enterprise architects. Forrester elded the survey rom January to

February 2011.

EnDnOTES

1 Comprehensive integration solutions are the most capable integration tools in the market as measured

by the total range o their unctionality. For a detailed evaluation o the CIS category, see the November 9,

2010, Te Forrester Wave: Comprehensive Integration Solutions, Q4 2010 report.

2 For more details on the components o an ESB and the components o CIS solutions, respectively, see the

March 26, 2010, Te ESB Reerence Architecture Model report, and see the April 19, 2010, Te CIS

Reerence Architecture Model report.
http://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56007&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56731&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56767&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56767&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56767&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56767&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56731&src=58074pdfhttp://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56007&src=58074pdf


15/15

Forrester Research, Inc. (Nasdaq: FORR)

is an independent research company

that provides pragmatic and orward-

thinking advice to global leaders in

business and technology. Forrester

works with proessionals in 19 key roles

at major companies providing

proprietary research, customer insight,

consulting, events, and peer-to-peerexecutive programs. For more than 27

years, Forrester has been making IT,

marketing, and technology industry

leaders successul every day. For more

inormation, visit www.orrester.com.

Headquarters

Forrester Research, Inc.

400 Technology Square

Cambridge, MA 02139 USA

Tel: +1 617.613.6000

Fax: +1 617.613.5000

Email: [email protected]

Nasdaq symbol: FORR

www.orrester.com

m a k g l e a d e s S e s s E v e D a

For inormation on hard-copy or electronic reprints, please contact Client Support

at +1 866.367.7378, +1 617.613.5730, or [email protected].

We oer quantity discounts and special pricing or academic and nonprot institutions.

For a complete list of worldwide locations

visit www.forrester.com/about.

Research and Sales Ofces

Forrester has research centers and sales ofces in more than 27 cities

internationally, including Amsterdam; Cambridge, Mass.; Dallas; Dubai;

Foster City, Cali.; Frankurt; London; Madrid; Sydney; Tel Aviv; and Toronto.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.forrester.com/

2011 forrester esb wave

Documents