"Good horizontal scaling and design."
"The most valuable features are the stream API, consumer groups, and the way that the scaling takes place."
"valuable features relate to microservices architecture and working on KStream and KSQL DB as a microservices event bus."
"Robust and delivers messages quickly."
"The high availability is valuable. It is robust, and we can rely on it for a huge amount of data."
"The valuable features are the group community and support."
"Kafka is an open-source tool that's easy to use in our country, and the command line interface is powerful."
"The stability is very nice. We currently manage 50 million events daily."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"While the solution scales well and easily, you need to understand your future needs and prep for the peaks."
"Kafka's interface could also use some work. Some of our products are in C, and we don't have any libraries to use with C. From an interface perspective, we had a library from the readies. And we are streaming some of the products we built to readies. That is one of the requirements. It would be good to have those libraries available in a future release for our C++ clients or public libraries, so we can include them in our product and build on that."
"Prioritization of messages in Apache Kafka could improve."
"Something that could be improved is having an interface to monitor the consuming rate."
"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."
"The price for the enterprise version is quite high. It would be better to have a lower price."
"Kafka has a lot of monitors, but sometimes it's most important to just have a simple monitor."
"Some vendors don't offer extra features for monitoring."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
Apache Kafka is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 22 reviews while Aurea CX Messenger is ranked 11th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 2 reviews. Apache Kafka is rated 7.8, while Aurea CX Messenger is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Open source, granular message retention options, and good third party support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Aurea CX Messenger writes "Easy to develop and easy to run". Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, ActiveMQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS, whereas Aurea CX Messenger is most compared with IBM MQ and Mule ESB. See our Apache Kafka vs. Aurea CX Messenger 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.
