We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Avada Software Infrared360 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, IBM, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software."ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"It provides the best support services."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time 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."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"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."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"Reliable message delivery and mirroring."
"We have easily created use case testing harnesses for specific flows that incorporate various message types."
"It has role-based access to queues, giving us more insights into problems."
"It allows non-technical users to inspect their individual components within the total infrastructure without disturbing other components and without bothering the technical teams."
"Monitoring that ties into our incident management system"
"It's what we use for monitoring our MQ system, so the features that they provide are just really, really good."
"The administration piece makes it very easy to do MQ administration. It gives us a lot more flexibility and capabilities."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"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."
"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."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"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."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"The UI can be cumbersome - but we are still using the Viper interface and we have not had the time to check out the Alloy interface which is supposed to be much improved."
"We desire a dashboard that could accumulate BOQ lengths per tenant on one screen for all tenants."
"We are still working with the FTE/MFT subscription monitoring and reporting functionality. That is an area in which we would like to see further development taking place."
"Some of the graphics in the interface could be improved. It's pretty basic. Some interfaces are not up to what you're used to seeing on other, more Windows-like tools."
"One area where they could improve is with their documentation. Some sections are not up to date with new release information and providing additional samples in some areas would be very helpful."
"The user interface could be sexier and more ergonomic. The competing products have similar problems."
Earn 20 points
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Avada Software Infrared360 is ranked 68th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Avada Software Infrared360 is rated 8.8. 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 Avada Software Infrared360 writes "An offsite team performs a daily infrastructure health check and sends reports to the technical/management teams. ". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and Apache Kafka, whereas Avada Software Infrared360 is most compared with IBM MQ and Dynatrace.
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.
