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."It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"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 important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"Reliable message delivery and mirroring."
"It provides the best support services."
"Apache Kafka is an open-source solution that can be used for messaging or event processing."
"It's an open-source product, which means it doesn't cost us anything to use it."
"The publisher-subscriber pattern and low latency are also essential features that greatly piqued my interest."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"All the features of Apache Kafka are valuable, I cannot single out one feature."
"Apache Kafka's most valuable features include clustering and sharding...It is a pretty stable solution."
"There are numerous possibilities that can be explored. While it may be challenging to fully comprehend the potential advantages, one key aspect is the ability to establish a proper sequence of events rather than simply dealing with a jumbled group of occurrences. These events possess their own timestamps, even if they were not initially provided with one, and are arranged in a chronological order that allows for a clear understanding of the progression of the events."
"I have seen a return on investment with this solution."
"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."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"The tool needs to improve its installation part which is lengthy. The product is already working on that aspect so that the complete installation gets completed within a month."
"The UI. It's both a good thing and a bad thing. The UI is too simple. Sometimes you wanna see the messages coming to the queue, and you have to refresh the dashboard, the console of the product."
"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"The solution can improve its cloud support."
"Some vendors don't offer extra features for monitoring."
"We cannot apply all of our security requirements because it is hard to upload them."
"The solution's initial setup process was complex."
"I would like them to reduce the learning curve around the creation of brokers and topics. They also need to improve on the concept of the partitions."
"Stability of the API and the technical support could be improved."
"They need to have a proper portal to do everything because, at this moment, Kafka is lagging in this regard."
"One of the things I am mostly looking for is that once the message is picked up from Kafka, it should not be visible or able to be consumed by other applications, or something along those lines. That feature is not present, but it is not a limitation or anything of the sort; rather, it is a desirable feature. The next release should include a feature that prevents messages from being consumed by other applications once they are picked up by Kafka."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 76 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Apache Kafka is rated 8.0. 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 Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and Redis, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and Amazon MQ. 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.
