We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Apache Kafka 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."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."
"It is a useful way to maintain messages and to manage offset from our consumers."
"The stability is very nice. We currently manage 50 million events daily."
"The open-source version is relatively straightforward to set up and only takes a few minutes."
"Kafka is an open-source tool that's easy to use in our country, and the command line interface is powerful."
"The valuable features are the group community and support."
"The most valuable feature is the messaging function and reliability."
"I like Kafka's flexibility, stability, reliability, and robustness."
"This is a system for email and other small devices. There has been a relay of transactions continuously over the last two years it has been in production."
"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."
"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."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve."
"Apache Kafka could improve data loss and compatibility with Spark."
"Kafka has a lot of monitors, but sometimes it's most important to just have a simple monitor."
"We struggled a bit with the built-in data transformations because it was a challenge to get them up and running the way we wanted."
"The graphical user environment is currently lacking."
"I suggest using cloud services because the solution is expensive if you are using it on-premises."
"The solution can improve by having automation for developers. We have done many manual calculations and it has been difficult but if it was automated it would be much better."
"The repository isn't working very well. It's not user friendly."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 29 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 8.0, while Apache Kafka is rated 8.0. 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 Apache Kafka writes "Good partition tolerance, message reliability, and API integration ". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ and Amazon SQS, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and IBM Event Streams. See our ActiveMQ vs. Apache Kafka 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.
