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."ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"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."
"There are some stability issues."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"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."
"It would be great if it is included as part of the solution, as Kafka is doing. Even though the use case of Kafka is different, If something like data extraction is possible, or if we can experiment with partition tolerance and other such things, that will be great."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"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."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"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."
ActiveMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 4 reviews while Amazon SQS is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 5 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.2, while Amazon SQS is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "High performance, good message toll replication, and the ability to raise network processes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "Very resilient with numerous great features including a 256 kilobyte payload". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, Anypoint MQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Amazon SQS is most compared with Apache Kafka, Amazon MQ, Oracle Event Hub Cloud Service, IBM MQ and VMware RabbitMQ. 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.
