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

Amazon SQS vs Redis 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.8
Amazon SQS enhances performance and reliability, increasing productivity by reducing programming effort and labor costs, despite initial investment.
Sentiment score
6.5
Implementing Redis improved transaction efficiency, reduced costs, enhanced performance, increased developer effectiveness, and supported scalability for organizations.
Using Amazon SQS has led to increased productivity and reduced man-hour costs.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.7
Amazon SQS customer service satisfaction varies, influenced by purchased support level, with premium options offering improved experiences.
Sentiment score
1.0
Users rarely contact Redis support, but those who do find it knowledgeable, with satisfaction levels ranging from moderate to excellent.
They meet their tasks effectively.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.1
Amazon SQS excels in scalability and integration, though users note configuration needs and potential message duplicates.
Sentiment score
7.7
Redis excels in scalability, efficiently handling large datasets with ease, making it ideal for enterprise-level operations and demands.
Amazon SQS is highly scalable, automatically managing itself based on the load.
I can easily scale up or down with Amazon SQS without any issues.
Data migration and changes to application-side configurations are challenging due to the lack of automatic migration tools in a non-clustered legacy system.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.3
Users highly trust Amazon SQS for its stability, reliability, and performance, often preferring it over RabbitMQ and Kafka.
Sentiment score
7.7
Redis is stable, reliable under heavy loads, supports high availability, and user ratings reflect strong performance, needing load improvements.
With Amazon SQS, such maintenance is not needed, making it more reliable and secure.
The stability of Amazon SQS is very good, as I find it to be very stable.
Redis is fairly stable.
 

Room For Improvement

Amazon SQS users seek better documentation, integrations, security, pricing, UI, performance, message handling, and monitoring tools.
Enhancements in documentation, user-friendliness, scalability, security, cloud integration, and support are desired improvements for Redis.
It would be beneficial if there was a provision to configure and retain messages for longer than a week.
Data persistence and recovery face issues with compatibility across major versions, making upgrades possible but downgrades not active.
 

Setup Cost

Amazon SQS offers a cost-effective pay-as-you-use model, but high-scale usage can increase costs compared to alternatives.
Redis's open-source core is cost-effective, but enterprise features require a license; managed services start at $5/month.
On a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, I would rate the pricing as one.
Since we use an open-source version of Redis, we do not experience any setup costs or licensing expenses.
 

Valuable Features

Amazon SQS enables scalable, reliable messaging with easy AWS integration, supporting FIFO and standard queues for efficient processing.
Redis provides fast data access with caching, geolocation, JSON, and supports scalability, high availability, and efficient event-driven applications.
If there's a failure in the system after consuming a message, SQS's settings ensure the message is not deleted until confirmation.
If we compare with other solutions such as RabbitMQ for messaging, Amazon SQS is easier to use and easier to create the queue.
It functions similarly to a foundational building block in a larger system, enabling native integration and high functionality in core data processes.
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon SQS
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Message Queue (MQ) Software (3rd)
Redis
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.7
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
NoSQL Databases (7th), Managed NoSQL Databases (9th), In-Memory Data Store Services (1st), Vector Databases (4th)
 

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…
Yaseer Arafat - PeerSpot reviewer
Unmatched Performance and Scalability for Modern Applications
Redis has room for improvement in a few areas. Enhanced tools for managing and monitoring clusters would be beneficial, as would built-in security mechanisms like advanced encryption and granular access controls. Simplifying setup and configuration could make Redis more accessible to new users. Introducing more enterprise-grade features, such as better multi-tenancy support and improved backup and restore capabilities, would also be advantageous. For the next release, it would be great to see enhanced cluster management tools, native multi-region supports for better data redundancy, integrated analytics for deeper insights, AI and ML integration features, and improved developer experience through enhanced SDKs and tools.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
869,883 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
12%
Educational Organization
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

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 Business11
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise8
 

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 Redis?
Redis is better tested and is used by large companies. I haven't found a direct alternative to what Redis offers. Plus, there are a lot of support and learning resources available, which help you u...
What needs improvement with Redis?
The disadvantage of Redis is that it's a little bit hard to have too many clusters or too many nodes and create the clusters. The sync between the nodes is easier to implement with Couchbase, for e...
What is your primary use case for Redis?
Redis is used for a part of a booking engine for travel, specifically for the front part to get some sessions and information about the sessions. If a customer or user is using the sites in differe...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Redis Enterprise
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EMS, NASA, BMW, Capital One
1. Twitter 2. GitHub 3. StackOverflow 4. Pinterest 5. Snapchat 6. Craigslist 7. Digg 8. Weibo 9. Airbnb 10. Uber 11. Slack 12. Trello 13. Shopify 14. Coursera 15. Medium 16. Twitch 17. Foursquare 18. Meetup 19. Kickstarter 20. Docker 21. Heroku 22. Bitbucket 23. Groupon 24. Flipboard 25. SoundCloud 26. BuzzFeed 27. Disqus 28. The New York Times 29. Walmart 30. Nike 31. Sony 32. Philips
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon SQS vs. Redis and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,883 professionals have used our research since 2012.