ActiveMQ vs VMware Tanzu Data Solutions comparison

Apache and Broadcom are both solutions in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category. Apache is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.5, while Broadcom is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.3. Apache holds a 19.8% mindshare in MQ, compared to Broadcom’s 9.6% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of Apache users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 89% of Broadcom users who would recommend it.

ActiveMQ

Read 28 ActiveMQ reviews

5,209 Views
5,001 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Read 85 VMware Tanzu Data Solutions reviews

8,267 Views
2,149 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

ActiveMQ

VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

VMware Tanzu Data Solutions and ActiveMQ are both open-source tools catering to different IT needs. VMware Tanzu leads in database performance and analytics, while ActiveMQ stands out in messaging and ease of use.

Features: VMware Tanzu excels with high performance, scalability, and integration with Hadoop and Big Data. Its robust parallel processing capabilities make it extremely efficient for analytics. ActiveMQ is notable for message queuing, providing features like message persistence, clustering, and support for multiple protocols.

Room for Improvement: VMware Tanzu could improve stability and integration features, and simplify complex administrative tasks. ActiveMQ can refine clustering capabilities, improve its monitoring console, and enhance documentation and support for additional protocols.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: VMware Tanzu offers hybrid and public cloud deployment options, with customer service varying in quality. ActiveMQ is mainly deployed on-premises, with support that is generally robust but often reliant on community forums.

Pricing and ROI: Both VMware Tanzu and ActiveMQ are cost-effective due to their open-source nature. VMware Tanzu's paid features offer flexibility and value for advanced functionalities, whereas ActiveMQ's affordability remains appealing, providing significant functionality at no cost.

To learn more, read our detailed ActiveMQ vs. VMware Tanzu Data Solutions Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ vs. VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 900,644 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

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software

6th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Database Development and Management (8th), Relational Databases Tools (23rd), Data Warehouse (10th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of ActiveMQ is 19.8%, down from 26.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of VMware Tanzu Data Solutions is 9.6%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Message Queue (MQ) Software Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
ActiveMQ	19.8%
VMware Tanzu Data Solutions	9.6%
Other	70.6%

Message Queue (MQ) Software

Q&A Highlights

Miriam Tover

Service Delivery Manager at PeerSpot

Jun 27, 2019

What is the biggest difference between ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ?

RabbitMQ has a larger installed base and more active OSS community.

See all answers

Featured Reviews

Nedunchezhian Samaraju

Sr. Manager - Digital at IndiGo

Offers diverse messaging protocols and excellent cloud support

In my current organization, I'm only working with ActiveMQ. I previously worked with IBM WebSphere MQ The features of ActiveMQ and WebSphere MQ fundamentally do the same thing. From my experience, I prefer WebSphere MQ. Both are very sturdy solutions; there is no doubt. Both are sturdy and…

Read full review

Karthik Shivaram

Sr. Manager at STI INFOTECH PVT LTD

Improved multi-cloud data management has simplified operations and supports seamless Kubernetes

From my perspective, the biggest challenge with VMware right now is the pricing. To be very honest, in many cases I find myself recommending alternative solutions instead of VMware. Even if those alternatives come with a bit more complexity, customers are often more willing to accept that than the current VMware pricing model. In the past, VMware used a socket-based licensing model, which was easier for customers to understand and budget for. Now the shift to a core-based licensing model has significantly increased costs for many environments, especially for organizations running modern high-core CPUs. One positive aspect of the new model is that VMware has bundled several components together. For example, earlier when deploying vSphere, customers also had to purchase vCenter separately for management. Now multiple components are packaged into a single SKU, which simplifies some aspects of procurement and deployment. While this consolidation has its benefits, the overall licensing and commercial costs remain very high. Pricing is not the only issue. I believe Broadcom also needs to reconsider its strategy in light of the current market conditions. The approach they are taking may be strategic from a business perspective, but from what I see in the field, it is leading to lost opportunities. Many customers who previously relied on VMware are now actively exploring alternative virtualization platforms. I’m not sure where this direction will ultimately lead, but based on my experience, it is already affecting adoption. Since you’ve been trying to reach me for some time—and we also had a discussion a couple of years ago—I hope this feedback helps Broadcom understand the current sentiment in the market and potentially make adjustments. Another important concern is the way features are bundled. In many cases, customers only need basic virtualization and high availability capabilities. However, the current packaging often includes additional features that they may not need. A good analogy is that if a customer only needs an entry-level car, we shouldn’t be forced to sell them a Rolls-Royce. VMware could benefit from adopting a more modular or à la carte licensing model, where customers can choose only the components they truly require. For example, if a customer only needs core virtualization functionality, they should be able to purchase just that. This would allow partners and solution providers to better align solutions with customer requirements and position VMware more competitively in the market. Another challenge I want to highlight is the pricing model based on U.S. dollars and the way multi-year licensing is handled. In many enterprise and government projects, customers prefer to commit to three-year or five-year licenses and pay the full amount upfront. However, in approximately 20% of the deals I work on, we lose opportunities because VMware only provides dollar-based pricing for the first year. When it comes to the following years, the contract requires renewals annually rather than allowing a fixed multi-year upfront payment. This approach is particularly problematic for government and public sector customers. Many of them are ready and willing to pay for three or five years in advance, but the current VMware model does not support that structure effectively. Because pricing is tied to the U.S. dollar and subject to yearly adjustments, VMware does not lock in pricing for the full term. From a customer’s perspective, this introduces uncertainty and makes procurement more complicated. Ideally, if a price is quoted—for example, $100 per year—it should remain consistent across a multi-year agreement. Customers would be comfortable committing to a five-year term if the price were fixed and predictable. Unfortunately, that flexibility is currently not available across VMware products, whether it is vSphere, VMware Tanzu solutions, or other offerings. For large enterprise environments, one-year commitments are usually not practical. Many enterprise customers prefer longer-term agreements for budgeting and procurement reasons. Even when they are willing to accept the higher cost associated with the core-based licensing model, the lack of a clear multi-year upfront option often becomes a deal-breaker.

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

"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."

"ActiveMQ is a great messaging system for synchronizing call and "fire and forget" types of calls."

"The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."

"I fully recommend this product, but you need to have some expertise working with JMS and asynchronous tasks."

"The main function I find valuable in ActiveMQ is facilitating message transfer within the client's internal network. ActiveMQ handles the message transfer from the internal network to the cloud. Regarding multi-protocols, we use different approaches based on client capabilities. Some clients connect for real-time data transfer, using database queries for periodic updates every ten minutes. We collect data from multiple clients, ensuring we get real-time sensor values where possible and periodic updates for others."

"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."

"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."

"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."

More ActiveMQ pros

"The security is great."

"Allowing for a fully asynchronous solution is crucial for this particular feature."

"This has helped us bring down our end-to-end EDW load time to one-third the time and has enabled faster and efficient data analysis in a scalable environment without adding too much cost."

"The solution is stable."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it is open source. The licensing costs are really low and they are transparent."

"Scalable (Massive) Parallel Processing (MPP) – The ability to bring to bear large amounts of compute against large data sets with Greenplum and the EMC DCA has proven itself to be very effective."

"It can be configured to be a very fast message broker. I like the stability, the built-in admin tools and plugin architecture."

"The loading speed is very good."

Cons

"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."

"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."

"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"

"I do not recommend ActiveMQ over Apache Kafka partly because I don't know who provides support for the solution."

"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."

"Even though there is support from many open source communities, there is still weakness in ease-of-use and ease-of-configuration for more complex scenarios."

"There are some stability issues."

"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."

More ActiveMQ cons

"The pricing is very high. To be honest, instead of VMware products, I am pushing other products."

"The initial setup is somewhat complex and the out-of-the-box configuration requires optimization."

"Some integration with other platforms like design tools, and ETL development tools, that will enable some advanced functionality (like fully down processing, etc.) would be helpful in future releases."

"The configuration for RabbitMQ borders on the esoteric."

"I would like to see the performance of the administration portal improved and additional messaging protocols."

"The fact GreenPlum is using an older version of Postgres means developers coming from other products will find many missing features in PostgreSQL, features which you would assume are standard."

"In build monitoring, the interface could be improved."

"The next release should include some of the flexibility and features that Kafka offers."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It’s open source, ergo free."

"The solution is less expensive than its competitors."

"We are using the open-source version, so we have not looked at any pricing."

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

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

"I think the software is free."

"I use open source with standard Apache licensing."

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

More ActiveMQ pricing and cost advice

"Pricing is good compared to other products. It's fine."

"It is an open-source product."

"The product is available for free use since it is an open-source technology."

"The solution's pricing is cost-effective as it does not involve significant expenses. Licensing is required only for the server, while clients do not need any licensing. Therefore, it proves to be a cost-efficient option."

"We are using the open-source version of this solution."

"The pricing is okay."

"It is the best product with best fit for price/performance customer objectives."

"It’s an open-source solution."

More VMware Tanzu Data Solutions pricing and cost advice

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

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

26%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

15%

Construction Company

12%

Outsourcing Company

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	17

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	30
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	50

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with ActiveMQ?

Pricing is something to consider with ActiveMQ, though cloud pricing is not costly and depends upon the compute selection. Focusing on AI is essential nowadays. AI capabilities require improvement ...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for ActiveMQ?

In my current organization, I'm only working with ActiveMQ. I previously worked with IBM WebSphere MQ.

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering ActiveMQ?

We have not deployed ActiveMQ's flexible clustering as that requirement is not present for us. We only use active-passive configuration. On a scale of one to ten, I rate ActiveMQ a ten out of ten.

See all answers

How does IBM MQ compare with VMware RabbitMQ?

IBM MQ has a great reputation behind it, and this solution is very robust with great stability. It is easy to use, simple to configure and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocol...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for VMware Tanzu GemFire?

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for VMware Tanzu Data Solutions is that it is a bit expensive.

See all answers

What needs improvement with VMware Tanzu GemFire?

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM MQ vs ActiveMQ

Compared 50% of the time

Red Hat AMQ vs ActiveMQ

Compared 7% of the time

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform vs ActiveMQ

Compared 6% of the time

PubSub+ Platform vs ActiveMQ

Compared 5% of the time

Amazon SQS vs ActiveMQ

Compared 5% of the time

More ActiveMQ Competitors

Oracle Exadata vs VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Compared 4% of the time

Teradata vs VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Compared 4% of the time

Nutanix Database Service vs VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Compared 4% of the time

Snowflake vs VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Compared 4% of the time

IBM MQ vs VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Compared 4% of the time

More VMware Tanzu Data Solutions Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ

June 2026

Download ActiveMQ product report

Buyer's Guide

VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

May 2026

Download VMware Tanzu Data Solutions product report

Also Known As

AMQ

Greenplum, Pivotal Greenplum, VMware RabbitMQ, VMware Tanzu GemFire, VMware Postgres

Overview

ActiveMQ is a messaging broker facilitating microservices communication and event management. It supports message queues, Camel routes, and asynchronous communication, enhancing integration capabilities and scalability with a network of brokers.

ActiveMQ efficiently supports message transfer in IoT applications and third-party systems, acting as a hub for code distribution and data flow management. It integrates well with XML and protocols like MQTT, while its fast messaging, reliable delivery, and efficient setup via Docker cater to diverse messaging needs. Though ActiveMQ is cost-effective, challenges exist with scalability, stability, and administration tools. Enhanced documentation and broader protocol support could resolve these issues, improving administration and initial configurations.

What are the key features of ActiveMQ?

Message Queues: Supports efficient queuing systems for distributing messages.
Camel Routes: Facilitates robust routing mechanisms within applications.
High Availability: Ensures reliable service delivery without interruptions.
Asynchronous Communication: Supports real-time interaction across systems.
XML Integration: Provides flexible communication through XML compatibility.
Protocol Support: Works with protocols like MQTT for versatile messaging.
Brokers Network: Enhances scalability with interconnected broker systems.
Docker Setup: Simplifies deployment processes using containerization.

What benefits should users expect from ActiveMQ?

Reliable Delivery: Guarantees messages are delivered promptly and consistently.
Cost-Effectiveness: Ensures affordability for small-scale applications.
Flexible Integration: Offers adaptable messaging solutions with varied systems.
Ease of Setup: Provides straightforward configuration and deployment processes.

ActiveMQ implementation spans industries from IoT, managing device communications and responses, to middleware solutions for payload consumption. It handles registrations and updates, sometimes being used in demonstrations of message broker concepts. Users often leverage it for its message handling efficiency in industry-specific applications.

Apache

VMware Tanzu is a robust platform tailored for data warehousing, complex analytics, BI applications, and predictive analytics. It excels in scalability, performance, and parallel processing, enhancing data handling efficiency. Users report significant productivity improvements and streamlined operations, making it ideal for comprehensive data solutions.

Broadcom

Sample Customers

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

General Electric, Conversant, China CITIC Bank, Aridhia, Purdue University

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ vs. VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

June 2026

Free Report: ActiveMQ vs. VMware Tanzu Data Solutions

Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveMQ vs. VMware Tanzu Data Solutions and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our ActiveMQ vs. VMware Tanzu Data Solutions 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.