We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker 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."For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"There is a vibrant community, and it is one of the strongest points of this product. We always get answers to our problems. So, my experience with the community support has been good."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"It provides the best support services."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Guaranteed Messaging allows for us to transport messages between on-prem and the cloud without any loss of data."
"In my assessment of Solace against other products — as I was responsible for evaluating various products and bringing the right tool into companies in the past — I worked with multiple platforms like RabbitMQ, Confluent, Kafka, and various other tools in the market. But I found the event mesh capability to be a very interesting as well as fulfilling capability, towards what we want to achieve from a digital-integration-strategy point of view... It's distributed, yet it is intelligently connected. It can also span and I can plug and play any number of brokers into the event mesh, so it's a great deal. That's a differentiator."
"As of now, the most valuable aspects are the topic-based subscription and the fanout exchange that we are using."
"We've built a lot of products into it and it's been quite easy to feed market data onto the systems and put entitlements and controls around that. That was a big win for us when we were consolidating our platforms down. Trying to have one event bus, one messaging bus, for the whole globe, and consolidate everything over time, has been key for us. We've been able to do that through one API, even if it's across the different languages."
"One of the main reasons for using PubSub+ is that it is a proper event manager that can handle events in a reactive way."
"The event portal and the diversity of deployment options in a hybrid landscape are the most valuable features."
"This solution reduces the latency to access changes in real-time and the effort required to onboard a new subscriber. It also reduces the maintenance of each of those interfaces because now the publisher and subscribers are decoupled. Event Broker handles all the communication and engagement. We can just push one update, then we don't have to know who is consuming it and what's happening to that publication downstream. It's all done by the broker, which is a huge benefit of using Event Broker."
"We like the seamless flexibility in protocol exchange offering without writing a code."
"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."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"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"
"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."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"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."
"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"The licensing and the cost are the major pitfalls."
"We've pointed out some things with the DMR piece, the event mesh, in edge cases where we could see a problem. Something like 99 percent of users wouldn't ever see this problem, but it has to do with if you get multiple bad clients sending data over a WAN, for example. That could then impact other clients."
"I would like them to design topic and queue schemas, mapping them to the enterprise data structure."
"If you create one event in the past, you cannot resend it."
"The deployment process is complex."
"We have requested to be able to get into the payload to do dynamic topic hierarchy building. A current workaround is using the message's header, where the business data can be put into this header and be used for a dynamic topic lookup. I want to see this in action when there are a couple of hundred cases live. E.g., how does it perform? From an administration perspective, is the ease of use there?"
"It could be cheaper. It could also have easier usage. It is a brilliant product, but it is quite complex to use."
"The section on observability pertains to understanding the functioning of an event crash. Instead of focusing on how the crash occurs, attention is given to the observable aspects, such as a memory pipeline where one person pushes messages and another reads them. However, this pipeline often encounters issues, such as the reader being unavailable, causing the system to become stuck and preventing the messages from moving forward. This can lead to the pipeline being permanently stalled."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while PubSub+ Event Broker is ranked 6th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 15 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while PubSub+ Event Broker is rated 8.6. 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 PubSub+ Event Broker writes "Event life cycle management changes the way a designer or architect will design a topic and discover what is available". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and EMQX, whereas PubSub+ Event Broker is most compared with Apache Kafka, IBM MQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Confluent and Amazon EventBridge. See our ActiveMQ vs. PubSub+ Event Broker 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.