No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Amazon SQS vs CloudAMQP comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
7.2
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
CloudAMQP
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
10th
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

Roberto Costa - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Data & AI Engineer at Imprint
Facilitates seamless queue creation and management for efficient application decoupling
If you need a messaging service to help decouple your application, Amazon SQS would be a smart choice because it's easy to use and very easy to manage Amazon SQS is a simple service to use. If we compare with other solutions such as RabbitMQ for messaging, Amazon SQS is easier to use and easier…
HemantKumar7 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Site Reliability Engineer at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
Reliable queues have handled heavy microservice traffic and prevent data loss in daily operations
The best features CloudAMQP offers include its ability to handle load efficiently. Without it, if there is a lack of requests coming from multiple consumers, it stores the data in the queue, and the lag will clear after consumption from the consumer side, ensuring no messages drop from CloudAMQP. Additionally, it can run tasks in the background so that it does not block any user requests. CloudAMQP is able to handle the load, and if I want to scale, I can scale the RabbitMQ nodes without any downtime. CloudAMQP has impacted our organization positively because it can handle a huge amount of data. I can have multiple RabbitMQ queues inside CloudAMQP and, as per my plan, purchase multiple queues that offer different capabilities. For example, the Tough Tiger plan allows sending a maximum of ten million messages per month with simultaneous connections of one hundred connections per queue, ensuring no traffic loss. For heavy environments, I can opt for Big Bunny queues, where I can handle one lakh messages per second if there is a huge amount of traffic. Additionally, I have a dedicated RabbitMQ broker as per my requirement, and according to my needs in CloudAMQP, there are different queue plans which I can select accordingly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is stable and scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"The migration to the cloud has satisfied our students, staff, and finance department, with a reduced responsibility."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"If we compare with other solutions such as RabbitMQ for messaging, Amazon SQS is easier to use and easier to create the queue."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"I think the tool is very reliable."
"The most valuable feature for me is the variety of queues offered, such as the standard and FIFO queues, providing reliable communication."
"CloudAMQP has positively impacted my organization as I have built an automation for scaling, which has helped the organization benefit from workload distribution and faster processes."
"Since using CloudAMQP, my organization has seen a very significant return on investment because there is no data loss, and I can recover the system timely."
"After using CloudAMQP, our efficiency has increased, and the data which is transferring from the fuel station has become easier and faster to communicate with our front-end application."
 

Cons

"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"There is room for improvement by making use of Kafka services to create more flexible data streams."
"A primary area of improvement for Amazon SQS is the message size limitation, which is currently restricted to 256 kilobytes per message."
"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases."
"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."
"Improvement is needed in terms of troubleshooting and logs."
"There is room for improvement in handling large-scale data."
"CloudAMQP can be improved as the pricing is a bit high, and if that could be reduced, it would be a great tool."
"CloudAMQP can be improved in a few ways, such as lowering the pricing at scale and keeping the pricing structure simpler."
"CloudAMQP can be improved, as sometimes while upgrading, for instance, if I am running a Big Bunny cluster and want to upgrade to Happy Hour, there is a lag or slowness while upgrading from one queue to another."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Amazon SQS is quite expensive and is at the highest price point 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."
"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."
"SQS's pricing is very good - I would rate it nine out of ten."
"Amazon SQS is moderately priced."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
7%
Construction Company
53%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Transportation Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise14
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon SQS?
There is nothing I can remember that I would want as new features for Amazon SQS.
What is your primary use case for Amazon SQS?
If you need a messaging service to help decouple your application, Amazon SQS would be a smart choice because it's easy to use and very easy to manage.
What advice do you have for others considering Amazon SQS?
I would recommend Amazon SQS to other people. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 10.
What needs improvement with CloudAMQP?
CloudAMQP can be improved, as sometimes while upgrading, for instance, if I am running a Big Bunny cluster and want to upgrade to Happy Hour, there is a lag or slowness while upgrading from one que...
What is your primary use case for CloudAMQP?
Our main use case for CloudAMQP is that we are using it for RabbitMQ operations as a message broker, with CloudAMQP managing RabbitMQ. Apart from that, we use it for microservice communication. In ...
What advice do you have for others considering CloudAMQP?
My advice for others looking into using CloudAMQP is that if you are choosing any message broker, you can go directly to CloudAMQP. However, before making a choice, at least check their plans accor...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EMS, NASA, BMW, Capital One
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Apache, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.