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
9th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (12th), SOA Governance (3rd), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Amazon SQS is 8.3%, down from 11.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 0.7%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Ariel Tarayants - PeerSpot reviewer
Powerful queue system facilitates seamless asynchronous operations
A feature I would like to see in Amazon SQS is the ability to view the content of messages without removing them from the queue. Enhanced filtering on the messages would be beneficial, as currently one has to pull all messages out, filter the right one by code, and then re-insert the remaining messages. This solution is not effective with the FIFO queue.
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."
"The most valuable features include the ability to handle a huge number of messages and the presence of a dead letter queue."
"The scale it manages is quite impressive."
"We use the tool in interface integrations."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"One of the most valuable features of Amazon SQS is its event-driven invocation."
"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 Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"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."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
 

Cons

"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"There is room for improvement by making use of Kafka services to create more flexible data streams."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"There could be improvements in the UI for security and scalability."
"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"It would be beneficial to have the ability to peek at messages currently in Amazon SQS without needing to monitor incoming messages."
"I cannot send a message to multiple people simultaneously. It can only be sent to one recipient."
"Support could be improved."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"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."
"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."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Amazon SQS offers a generous free tier, beyond which it remains very cost-effective. The cost per million messages is less than a dollar, making it an economical choice."
"Amazon SQS is moderately priced."
"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."
"I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten."
"The pricing model is pay-as-you-use. It depends on your usage and configuration."
"Compared to EC2 and other services, Amazon SQS' pricing is cheaper."
"Amazon SQS is more affordable compared to other solutions."
"SQS's pricing is very good - I would rate it nine out of ten."
"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
"The pricing is not so high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
17%
Insurance Company
8%
Retailer
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...
What do you like most about Aurea CX Messenger?
The Messenger Broker is a really good feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Aurea CX Messenger?
The pricing is not so high. I will rate it a seven out of ten, where one is the lowest and ten is the highest. There are no additional fees to the standard license.
What needs improvement with Aurea CX Messenger?
The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services because the earlier version is not using web service and cloud functionality. If Aurea could include these features in the fut...
 

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: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.