We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Amazon SQS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"I appreciate many features including queue, topic, durable topic, and selectors. I also value a different support for different protocols such as MQTT and AMQP. It has full support for EIP, REST, Message Groups, UDP, and TCP."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"There is a vibrant community, and it is one of the strongest points of this product. We always get answers to our problems. So, my experience with the community support has been good."
"Reliable message delivery and mirroring."
"I am impressed with the tool’s latency. Also, the messages in ActiveMQ wait in a queue. The messages will start to move when the system reopens after getting stuck."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"I appreciate that Amazon SQS is fully integrated with Amazon and can be accessed through normal functions or serverless functions, making it very user-friendly. Additionally, the features are comparable to those of other solutions."
"It is stable and scalable."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"From the TPS point of view, it's like 100,000 transactions that need to be admitted from different devices and also from the different minor small systems. Those are best fit for Kafka. We have used it on the customer side, and we thought of giving a try to ActiveMQ, but we have to do a lot of performance tests and approval is required before we can use it for this scale."
"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"One potential area would be the complexity of the initial setup."
"I would like the tool to improve compliance and stability. We will encounter issues while using the central applications. In the solution's future releases, I want to control and set limitations for databases."
"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"The clustering for sure needs improvement. When we were using it, the only thing available was an active/passive relationship that had to be maintained via shared file storage. That model includes a single point of failure in that storage medium."
"Support could be improved."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"I do not think that this solution is easy to use and the documentation of this solution has a lot of problems and can be improved in the next release. Most of the time, the images in the document are from older versions."
"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"As a company that uses IBM solutions, it's difficult to compare Amazon SQS to other solutions. We have been using IBM solutions for a long time and they are very mature in integration and queuing. In my role as an integration manager, I can say that Amazon SQS is designed primarily for use within the Amazon ecosystem and does not have the same level of functionality as IBM MQ or other similar products. It has limited connectivity options and does not easily integrate with legacy systems."
"The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases."
"The initial setup of Amazon SQS is in the middle range of difficulty. You need to learn Amazon AWS and know how to navigate, create resources, and structures, and provide rules."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Amazon SQS is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 13 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Amazon SQS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "Allows for asynchronous communication, enabling services to operate independently but issues with stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and Redis, whereas Amazon SQS is most compared with Apache Kafka, Redis, Amazon MQ, Anypoint MQ and PubSub+ Event Broker. See our ActiveMQ vs. Amazon SQS report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
