Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon SQS vs Aurea CX Messenger comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

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

Amazon SQS
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Aurea CX Messenger
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
12th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (6th), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (14th), SOA Governance (5th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Amazon SQS is 8.1%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 1.1%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Hari Prakash Pokala - PeerSpot reviewer
Valuable AWS services enhance data analysis yet could benefit from flexible data streams
I am using multiple services such as AWS Lambda, S3, EC2, ECS, and the SNS SQS services, along with QuickSight reports and some of the VPC concepts.  We have an email notification system integrated with Spring Branch. Once a batch job completes, SNS and SQS trigger events, sending notification…
Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Lightweight and efficient solution
It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The dead-letter queue is very helpful in maintaining the messages that come into the queue."
"We used SQS for the Kapolei system to ensure that certain tasks were executed precisely once. The first-in, first-out (FIFO) capability was a great feature for us. Additionally, its redundancy out of the box meant we didn't have to worry about missing messages. It provided peace of mind and automatically instilled trust, relieving us of any concerns."
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"One of the useful features is the ability to schedule a call after a certain number of messages accumulate in the container. For example, if there are ten messages in the container, you can perform a specific action."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is its scalability."
"The most valuable features of the solution are AWS Lambda services, ECS, and QuickSight reports, which are beneficial for data analysis."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to decouple components."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
 

Cons

"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"A primary area of improvement for Amazon SQS is the message size limitation, which is currently restricted to 256 kilobytes per message."
"I do not think that this solution is easy to use and the documentation of this solution has a lot of problems and can be improved in the next release. Most of the time, the images in the document are from older versions."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"The initial setup of Amazon SQS is in the middle range of difficulty. You need to learn Amazon AWS and know how to navigate, create resources, and structures, and provide rules."
"For Amazon SQS, in particular, I think AWS Management Console has shortcomings. AWS Management Console should be a better pluggable option to help users with some integrations."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Amazon SQS is moderately priced."
"Amazon SQS is quite expensive and is at the highest price point compared to other solutions."
"The pricing of Amazon SQS is reasonable. The first million requests are free every month, and after, it's cost 40 cents for every million requests. There are not any additional fees."
"Compared to the other options and based on what I have heard, Amazon SQS is relatively more expensive, but it is not insanely expensive."
"The pricing model is pay-as-you-use. It depends on your usage and configuration."
"Amazon SQS is more affordable compared to other solutions."
"Compared to EC2 and other services, Amazon SQS' pricing is cheaper."
"I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten."
"The pricing is not so high."
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Insurance Company
10%
Media Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon SQS?
The retention period for messages could be improved. Currently, messages are retained for four or seven days. It would be beneficial if there was a provision to configure and retain messages for lo...
What is your primary use case for Amazon SQS?
I primarily use Amazon SQS ( /products/amazon-sqs-reviews ) for asynchronous messaging. It is part of our distributed system design, where we use it for asynchronous communication by posting a mess...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EMS, NASA, BMW, Capital One
Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon SQS vs. Aurea CX Messenger and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.