We performed a comparison between Amazon SQS and IBM MQ 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."We use the tool in interface integrations."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"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."
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"It is stable and scalable."
"IBM MQ deals mainly with the queuing mechanism. It passes the data and it publishes it. These two abilities are the most valuable features."
"RabbitMQ and Kafka require more steps for setup than IBM MQ. Installation of the IBM product is very simple."
"All the features are valuable."
"The solution is very easy to work with."
"The solution allows one to easily configure an IBM MQQueueManager."
"It is stable, reliable, and scalable."
"It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features."
"I haven't seen any issues with respect to the message loss."
"Support could be improved."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"I cannot send a message to multiple people simultaneously. It can only be sent to one recipient."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"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."
"As a company that uses IBM solutions, it's difficult to compare Amazon SQS to other solutions. We have been using IBM solutions for a long time and they are very mature in integration and queuing. In my role as an integration manager, I can say that Amazon SQS is designed primarily for use within the Amazon ecosystem and does not have the same level of functionality as IBM MQ or other similar products. It has limited connectivity options and does not easily integrate with legacy systems."
"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."
"I would like to see message duplication included."
"It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."
"We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better."
"I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop."
"It's not always easy for applications to connect to IBM MQ, but I think it's fine in general."
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products."
"It could always be more stable and secure."
Amazon SQS is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 12 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 157 reviews. Amazon SQS is rated 8.0, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Reliable and stable solution that includes support from the IBM technical team". Amazon SQS is most compared with Apache Kafka, Redis, Amazon MQ, Anypoint MQ and Oracle Event Hub Cloud Service, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, ActiveMQ, VMware RabbitMQ, Red Hat AMQ and Anypoint MQ. See our Amazon SQS vs. IBM MQ 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.