We performed a comparison between Anypoint MQ and Apache Kafka 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.
"It's easy to use and comes as a bundle package with the Anypoint Platform, removing the need for any complex setup."
"Initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment is a cakewalk."
"Messaging and queueing solution that has good stability and scalability. It can be used for a variety of messaging types."
"It is the performance that is really meaningful."
"Deployment is speedy."
"The most valuable feature is the support for a high volume of data."
"valuable features relate to microservices architecture and working on KStream and KSQL DB as a microservices event bus."
"I like Kafka's flexibility, stability, reliability, and robustness."
"Apache Kafka has good integration capabilities and has plenty of adapters in its ecosystem if you want to build something. There are adapters for many platforms, such as Java, Azure, and Microsoft's ecosystem. Other solutions, such as Pulsar have fewer adapters available."
"The high availability is valuable. It is robust, and we can rely on it for a huge amount of data."
"The processing power of Apache Kafka is good when you have requirements for high throughput and a large number of consumers."
"Anypoint MQ's capabilities are mainly used for messaging purposes, but it doesn't have typical use cases that extend as far as other Message Queue software."
"It's extremely expensive to change things in Anypoint MQ. There's also this issue of slow output of messages, and that needs to be improved."
"There are so many solutions like this, but this is not as mature as those products. The other MQ products have the capability of reprocessing and maintaining the persistence of the data. They can handle large volumes and large messages, but Anypoint MQ doesn't have those capabilities."
"Prioritization of messages in Apache Kafka could improve."
"The management tool could be improved."
"The management overhead is more compared to the messaging system. There are challenges here and there. Like for long usage, it requires restarts and nodes from time to time."
"More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve."
"Kafka has a lot of monitors, but sometimes it's most important to just have a simple monitor."
"The solution can improve by having automation for developers. We have done many manual calculations and it has been difficult but if it was automated it would be much better."
"They need to have a proper portal to do everything because, at this moment, Kafka is lagging in this regard."
"An area for improvement would be growth."
Anypoint MQ is ranked 9th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews. Anypoint MQ is rated 6.6, while Apache Kafka is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Anypoint MQ writes "Stable and scalable messaging and queueing solution, but suffers from slow output of messages". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Good performance when a high throughput is required, but they need to implement a portal". Anypoint MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, VMware RabbitMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, ActiveMQ and Amazon MQ. See our Anypoint MQ vs. Apache Kafka 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.
