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

Amazon SQS vs Red Hat AMQ 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
7.2
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat AMQ
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Amazon SQS is 7.6%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat AMQ is 8.9%, up from 8.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Amazon SQS7.6%
Red Hat AMQ8.9%
Other83.5%
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2281650 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Specialist at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
Efficient data retention and high scalability drive significant productivity improvements
The features of Amazon SQS that I find most valuable include its data retention capabilities and message durability. The retention of data is crucial, as other systems like RabbitMQ or ActiveMQ require management. Furthermore, if there's a failure in the system after consuming a message, SQS's settings ensure the message is not deleted until confirmation. Additionally, generating FIFO and standard queues based on use cases is a helpful feature.
SachinJain - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Technical Specialist at Intuitive Technology Partners
Efficiently manages high availability and fault tolerance for critical systems with user-friendly management features
I have experience with features such as message persistence and fault tolerance because I configured high availability and fault tolerance for the client environment, including active-active and active-passive configurations. I mainly prefer active-active. I created a security feature for user authentication and authorization in Red Hat AMQ using vault. When you enable the vault, then your whole Red Hat AMQ becomes more secure. Management is straightforward. I configured it and created documentation. The operations team takes care of the operation part. I educate them on how to manage access, so they can easily add new people who join the company or manage the people who leave. The benefits of using Red Hat AMQ include easy configuration and monitoring. On the portal, I can monitor how many packets or alerts have been generated or sent to the end user via Red Hat AMQ along with messages or emails. It also shows utilization in the tool. These features also come with other AMQs such as Amazon and IBM.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We use Amazon SQS for notifying, queuing servers, queuing messages, and notifying the people for alerting systems."
"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."
"It works consistently and is economical under a standard non-FIFO model."
"We use SNS as the publisher, and our procurement service subscribes to those events using SQS. In the past, we relied on time-based or batch-based processes to send data between services on-premises. With SQS, we can trigger actions based on real-time changes in business processes, improving reliability."
"The most valuable feature for me is the variety of queues offered, such as the standard and FIFO queues, providing reliable communication."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is its scalability."
"The scale it manages is quite impressive."
"The benefits of using Red Hat AMQ include easy configuration and monitoring; on the portal, I can monitor how many packets or alerts have been generated or sent to the end user via Red Hat AMQ along with messages or emails, and it also shows utilization in the tool."
"This product is well adopted on the OpenShift platform. For organizations like ours that use OpenShift for many of our products, this is a good feature."
"Reliability is the main criterion for selecting this tool for one of the busiest airports in Mumbai."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
 

Cons

"Support could be improved."
"A primary area of improvement for Amazon SQS is the message size limitation, which is currently restricted to 256 kilobytes per message."
"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."
"There could be improvements in the UI for security and scalability."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing, especially for the FIFO model."
"The cost became an issue, leading us to consider other solutions."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"The retention period for messages could be improved. Currently, messages are retained for four or seven days."
"The challenge is the multiple components it has. This brings a higher complexity compared to IBM MQ, which is a single complete unit."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"The product needs to improve its documentation and training."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to the other options and based on what I have heard, Amazon SQS is relatively more expensive, but it is not insanely expensive."
"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."
"Compared to EC2 and other services, Amazon SQS' pricing is cheaper."
"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."
"Amazon SQS is more affordable compared to other solutions."
"The pricing model is pay-as-you-use. It depends on your usage and configuration."
"I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten."
"Amazon SQS is quite expensive and is at the highest price point compared to other solutions."
"This is a very cost-effective solution and the pricing is much better than competitors."
"There is a subscription needed for this solution and there are support plans available."
"The solution is open-source."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive."
"Red Hat AMQ's pricing could be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise2
 

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 needs improvement with Red Hat AMQ?
The areas for improvement include cost, which is a primary concern. The deployment process is simple, but the cost is very important. Additionally, the management portal should be more user-friendl...
What is your primary use case for Red Hat AMQ?
For use cases for Red Hat AMQ, let's take banking purposes. This depends upon the firm or the service or product company. For example, let's take HDFC Bank or any other bank. Whenever a customer de...
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat AMQ?
I work primarily with Red Hat. For IBM, I have worked with their channel partner, not directly with IBM. For Amazon, I work with partners only. I am working with one company as a consultant. I also...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Red Hat JBoss A-MQ, Red Hat JBoss AMQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EMS, NASA, BMW, Capital One
E*TRADE, CERN, CenturyLink, AECOM, Sabre Holdings
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon SQS vs. Red Hat AMQ and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.