ActiveMQ Reviews

ActiveMQ users consistently highlight its cost-effectiveness, emphasizing its open-source nature which offers a free-to-use option with standard Apache licensing. Many find the pricing policies favorable, noting it as a safe, competitive solution in comparison to alternatives like JMS and Kafka. Enterprise buyers can appreciate the lack of setup costs and fees, as the open-source version is highly popular among users who have not engaged with additional pricing or licensing complexities.

• "The solution is less expensive than its competitors."
• "The tool's pricing is reasonable and competitive compared to other solutions."
• "ActiveMQ is open source, so it is free to use."

Organizations primarily utilize ActiveMQ for messaging, enabling microservices intercommunication and middleware payload consumption. It facilitates message exchange between applications, manages event messages, and serves as a message broker in architectures. ActiveMQ updates systems by publishing codes and topics, aiding in IoT sensor communication, digital ID platforms, and automating incident responses. It efficiently handles asynchronous communication and message flow, reducing human intervention and enhancing process automation. It is often preferred for showcasing software solutions.

ActiveMQ customer service offers robust options for open-source, relying heavily on community and documentation. Users find community forums effective, citing good experiences with community support. Direct technical service is often unutilized, with some relying on forums like StackOverflow for information. Apache community is noted as vibrant, frequently providing timely answers. For official support, response times can vary. Subscriptions for enhanced services are mentioned but not widely used. Users appreciate the extensive community backing and documentation available.

Initial setup of ActiveMQ is generally straightforward, especially when using Docker or Apache-provided images, making deployment efficient. Many find it easy, attributing their success to available resources and scripts like Ansible. Some express difficulties with configurations and learning curves, particularly in high-performance environments or first-time installations. Experienced users highlight the simplicity of embedding and starting the application using basic commands. Client installation can pose challenges, but familiarity enhances the experience.

ActiveMQ displays diverse scalability experiences. Many report seamless scaling using strategies like broker multiplication and middleware integration, often meeting project needs effectively. However, some experience limitations, particularly with horizontal scaling and network setup challenges. Companies expect user growth and consider professional support to handle potential scaling concerns. Although suitable for small to medium-sized enterprises with reliable connectivity demands, it may not always fit larger organizations’ requirements. Nonetheless, ActiveMQ typically performs well under available resource conditions.

Most users report ActiveMQ as stable without significant stability problems, though some experience issues like connection loss and bugs, such as memory leaks. Occasional interruptions are cited, affecting operations for some. While many successfully use it without downtime, stability is sometimes rated as needing improvement. In development environments, it's perceived as fairly stable, with some attributing problems to implementation choices. ActiveMQ handles requests well when configured correctly and is generally regarded as sturdy and stable.