Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ActiveMQ vs Aurea CX Messenger comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ActiveMQ
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
2nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Aurea CX Messenger
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
9th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (12th), SOA Governance (3rd), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of ActiveMQ is 26.2%, up from 22.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Eyob Alemu - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient data flow management with high performance and occasional stability improvements
For high traffic volumes where management time on ActiveMQ is minimal and where the rate of flow from the provider is slower than from the consumer, ActiveMQ offers the highest performance based on our experience. It has been efficient for data flow control between two endpoints, despite occasional unexpected glitches. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Lightweight and efficient solution
It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"Message broadcasting: There could be a use case sending the same message to all consumers. So as a producer, I broadcast the message to a topic. Then, whichever consumers are subscribed to the topic can consume the same message."
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"The initial setup and first deployment of ActiveMQ is fairly simple."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
 

Cons

"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"Sometimes issues arise in production with ActiveMQ due to the number of requests. For example, if you have configured one thousand requests at a time and it receives one thousand and one messages at a time, it breaks."
"We need to enhance stability and improve the deployment optimization to fully leverage the platform's capabilities."
"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."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"There are some stability issues."
"The solution's stability needs improvement."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It’s open source, ergo free."
"There are no fees because it is open-source."
"The tool's pricing is reasonable and competitive compared to other solutions."
"We use the open-source version."
"The solution is less expensive than its competitors."
"I use open source with standard Apache licensing."
"ActiveMQ is open source, so it is free to use."
"I think the software is free."
"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
"The pricing is not so high."
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
34%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Insurance Company
9%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about ActiveMQ?
For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery.
What needs improvement with ActiveMQ?
We need to address the non-deterministic load issues. Sometimes, ActiveMQ either restarts automatically or goes into ActiveMQ mode, causing interruptions. We need to enhance stability and improve t...
What is your primary use case for ActiveMQ?
We have a digital ID platform that uses various services running on Kafka. There are two main endpoints where services interact with external services. These include an automatic biometric service ...
What do you like most about Aurea CX Messenger?
The Messenger Broker is a really good feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Aurea CX Messenger?
The pricing is not so high. I will rate it a seven out of ten, where one is the lowest and ten is the highest. There are no additional fees to the standard license.
What needs improvement with Aurea CX Messenger?
The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services because the earlier version is not using web service and cloud functionality. If Aurea could include these features in the fut...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

AMQ
CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Washington, Daugherty Systems, CSC, STG Technologies, Inc. 
Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveMQ vs. Aurea CX Messenger and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.