ActiveMQ vs IBM Event Streams comparison

Apache and IBM are both solutions in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category. Apache is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.0, while IBM is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0. Apache holds a 26.2% mindshare in MQ, compared to IBM’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Apache users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of IBM users who would recommend it.

ActiveMQ

Read 27 ActiveMQ reviews

6,237 Views
2,763 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

IBM Event Streams

Read 3 IBM Event Streams reviews

218 Views
145 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

ActiveMQ

IBM Event Streams

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

ActiveMQ and IBM Event Streams are competing in the message brokering and data streaming markets. While ActiveMQ is noted for its cost-effectiveness, IBM Event Streams is recognized for its robust features, offering a high-value solution for enterprises.

Features: ActiveMQ supports multiple messaging protocols, dynamic clustering, and simplicity, which benefit smaller teams. IBM Event Streams includes advanced integration with Apache Kafka, geo-replication capabilities, and powerful data analytics tools, appealing to enterprises that need to handle high throughput and complex data.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ActiveMQ offers a straightforward deployment process, ideal for smaller projects with limited technical support. IBM Event Streams may be more complex due to its Kafka integration but gains strength from extensive customer service and thorough documentation, fitting large-scale operations.

Pricing and ROI: ActiveMQ has a lower initial cost, suitable for startups or budget-conscious projects, providing satisfactory ROI for small to medium applications. IBM Event Streams, with a higher initial investment, delivers significant ROI for larger businesses seeking sophisticated data integration and capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed ActiveMQ vs. IBM Event Streams Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ vs. IBM Event Streams

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 858,469 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

IBM Event Streams

Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software

10th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

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 IBM Event Streams is 1.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Message Queue (MQ) Software

Featured Reviews

Eyob Alemu

Technical Director at NIDP

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.

Read full review

Ismail El-Dahshan

CEO at areebah

Easy to set up with good support and good routing scenarios

The triggering and the events that they have triggered as well as the route of the message according to the events are very useful. The triggering scenarios and routing scenarios are all good. It's a very useful solution for financial institutions. The initial setup is pretty straightforward. The stability has been good. I've found the product to be scalable. Technical support is responsive.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."

"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."

"We value ActiveMQ for its performance, throughput, and low latency, especially in handling large volumes of data and sequential management of topics."

"The initial setup and first deployment of ActiveMQ is fairly simple."

"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."

"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."

More ActiveMQ pros

"The stability has been good."

"I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."

"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."

Cons

"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 solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"I would like the tool to improve compliance and stability. We will encounter issues while using the central applications. In the solution's future releases, I want to control and set limitations for databases."

"The clustering for sure needs improvement. When we were using it, the only thing available was an active/passive relationship that had to be maintained via shared file storage. That model includes a single point of failure in that storage medium."

"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."

More ActiveMQ cons

"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."

"It would be helpful if they could help us explain why they, as in, the customers, should use the product and the overall benefits."

"The product's interface needs improvement."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is less expensive than its competitors."

"I think the software is free."

"We use the open-source version."

"The tool's pricing is reasonable and competitive compared to other solutions."

"ActiveMQ is open source, so it is free to use."

"It’s open source, ergo free."

"I use open source with standard Apache licensing."

"There are no fees because it is open-source."

More ActiveMQ pricing and cost advice

"The pricing needs to be improved."

"The platform is averagely priced."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

858,469 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

34%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

26%

Computer Software Company

13%

Retailer

10%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with ActiveMQ?

With ActiveMQ there should be more options. If you work with other technologies, for example, Java, there are many options. We can integrate the way we want ActiveMQ. We can create partitions and c...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for ActiveMQ?

ActiveMQ inside AP is one of those powerful features because we generally use ActiveMQ for acting on incidents which do not involve any human interaction or personal activity. For example, you have...

See all answers

What do you like most about IBM Event Streams?

The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Event Streams?

The platform is averagely priced. I rate the pricing a six out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Event Streams?

The product's interface needs improvement. Additionally, there could be a management console to create and manage clusters.

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM MQ vs ActiveMQ

Compared 53% of the time

Red Hat AMQ vs ActiveMQ

Compared 17% of the time

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform vs ActiveMQ

Compared 10% of the time

Amazon SQS vs ActiveMQ

Compared 5% of the time

PubSub+ Platform vs ActiveMQ

Compared 4% of the time

More ActiveMQ Competitors

Apache Kafka vs IBM Event Streams

Compared 60% of the time

Red Hat AMQ vs IBM Event Streams

Compared 40% of the time

More IBM Event Streams Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ

June 2025

Download ActiveMQ product report

Buyer's Guide

Message Queue (MQ) Software

June 2025

Download IBM Event Streams product report

Also Known As

AMQ

No data available

Overview

Apache ActiveMQ is the most popular and powerful open source messaging and Integration Patterns server.

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License

Apache

Built on open source Apache Kafka, IBM Event Streams is an event-streaming platform that helps you build smart applications that can react to events as they happen. IBM Event Streams is based on years of operational expertise IBM has gained from running Apache Kafka event streams for enterprises

IBM

Sample Customers

University of Washington, Daugherty Systems, CSC, STG Technologies, Inc.

American Airlines, UBank, Bitly, Eurobits, Active International, Bison, Contextor, Constance Hotels, Resorts & Golf, Creval, Deloitte, ExxonMobil, FaceMe, FacePhi, Fitzsoft, Fuga Technologies, Guardio, Honeywell, Japanese airline, Jenzabar, KONE

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ vs. IBM Event Streams

June 2025

Free Report: ActiveMQ vs. IBM Event Streams

Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveMQ vs. IBM Event Streams and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

858,469 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our ActiveMQ vs. IBM Event Streams 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.