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.
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"When it comes to granularity, you can literally do anything regarding how the filtering works."
"When we went to add another installation in our private cloud, it was easy. We received support from Solace and the install was seamless with no issues."
"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."
"The way we can replicate information and send it to several subscribers is most valuable. It can be used for any kind of business where you've got multiple users who need information. Any company, such as LinkedIn, with a huge number of subscribers and any business, such as publishing, supermarket, airline, or shipping can use it."
"As of now, the most valuable aspects are the topic-based subscription and the fanout exchange that we are using."
"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."
"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."
"It could be cheaper. It could also have easier usage. It is a brilliant product, but it is quite complex to use."
"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?"
"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."
"If you create one event in the past, you cannot resend it."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 2 reviews while PubSub+ Event Broker is ranked 6th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 4 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 9.0, while PubSub+ Event Broker is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "High performance, good message toll replication, and the ability to raise network processes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PubSub+ Event Broker writes "We can add an application or users in the middle of the day, with no disruption to anyone". ActiveMQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, IBM MQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Anypoint MQ and Oracle Event Hub Cloud Service, whereas PubSub+ Event Broker is most compared with Apache Kafka, IBM MQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Confluent and Amazon EventBridge.
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.
