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

Apache Kafka vs IBM MQ vs PubSub+ Platform 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
6.6
Apache Kafka offers substantial returns, especially in high-value applications, with enhanced data buffering, cost savings, and ease of use.
Sentiment score
6.4
IBM MQ is reliable, cost-effective, enhances stability, and supports integration, though measuring returns may be challenging for public services.
Sentiment score
7.0
PubSub+ Platform users see efficiency and cost benefits, though some find Kafka more economical long-term due to complex returns.
It's a product which integrates the external systems with internal systems or among the systems themselves, making it an essential technology component required to integrate multiple systems.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.9
Apache Kafka's support is community-driven, with varying user experiences and enhanced options available through paid subscriptions and consultants.
Sentiment score
6.9
IBM MQ support is praised for helpfulness, yet some report delays and suggest improvements in response times and escalation.
Sentiment score
7.5
PubSub+ Platform offers exceptional, responsive customer service with efficient problem resolution and user-driven feature development.
The Apache community provides support for the open-source version.
There is plenty of community support available online.
With Microsoft, expectations are higher because we pay for a license and have a contract.
We cannot hold on to the project for a long time just to wait for IBM to fix the issues.
The response time for IBM MQ support could be better because when we are using IBM MQ and something goes wrong, support is required as the resource availability of the IBM product is very limited.
With containerized flavors of these products, we are having a tough time dealing with PMRs because the versions are new to IBM.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Apache Kafka is praised for its robust scalability, efficiently handling high data throughput, with some challenges in cluster management.
Sentiment score
7.5
IBM MQ's scalability supports various environments with high performance, yet some users find complexity and cost challenging.
Sentiment score
7.0
PubSub+ Platform seamlessly scales across IT environments, excelling in adaptability, performance, and transaction processing despite some complexity concerns.
Customers have not faced issues with user growth or data streaming needs.
IBM MQ handles many thousands of messages in a second, indicating good scalability.
In our environment, we do not have horizontal scaling for IBM MQ, but as demand increases, we would just vertically scale it.
We've got 12 VMs running, and it's very easy to scale.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Apache Kafka is stable and performs well with high data volumes, though some configurations may affect its reliability.
Sentiment score
8.1
IBM MQ is highly rated for its stability and reliability, with minimal issues primarily linked to external factors.
Sentiment score
8.2
PubSub+ Platform delivers stable, reliable performance with zero downtime, handling massive data efficiently and ensuring high availability.
Apache Kafka is stable.
This feature of Apache Kafka has helped enhance our system stability when handling high volume data.
We have never had any downtime or crashes since it's been running.
The transaction is always guaranteed with IBM MQ, which is the main reason I have been working with it for fifteen years while dealing with financial transactions or messages.
Otherwise, they're completely stable.
 

Room For Improvement

Enhancing Kafka involves user-friendly UI, improved monitoring, reduced ZooKeeper dependency, better documentation, flexibility, and integration with other platforms.
IBM MQ users seek enhanced security, modern UI, better cloud integration, and improved scalability with cost-effective and intuitive solutions.
PubSub+ Platform needs improvements in integration, user management, dashboard functionality, and open-source support for enhanced application deployment.
The performance angle is critical, and while it works in milliseconds, the goal is to move towards microseconds.
We are always trying to find the best configs, which is a challenge.
A more user-friendly interface and better management consoles with improved documentation could be beneficial.
Having a graphical user interface would improve usability.
The pricing model for IBM MQ could be more flexible for clients.
They don't meet our standards due to the timing to get a person with knowledge.
It was as impressive as Kafka, better than Kafka based on my experience working on the Solace and Kafka white paper.
 

Setup Cost

Apache Kafka is free to use, but costs vary for managed services and enterprise solutions, potentially exceeding 100,000 euros annually.
IBM MQ's licensing costs are high, especially for large deployments, but it's valued for performance despite cheaper alternatives.
Enterprise users value PubSub+ for its clear pricing, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, appreciating the free version for initial evaluation.
The open-source version of Apache Kafka results in minimal costs, mainly linked to accessing documentation and limited support.
Its pricing is reasonable.
It's not cheap.
It's possible to get some training, but the cost of this learning is expensive.
The price of IBM MQ is definitely on the higher side.
 

Valuable Features

Apache Kafka excels in scalability, real-time streaming, and flexibility, ideal for large data volumes and event-driven architectures.
IBM MQ ensures reliable, secure messaging with high scalability, supporting diverse applications, ideal for banking and financial sectors.
PubSub+ Platform offers seamless integration, scalability, and WAN optimization with intuitive management, efficient data distribution, and advanced topic filtering.
Apache Kafka is effective when dealing with large volumes of data flowing at high speeds, requiring real-time processing.
Apache Kafka is particularly valuable for managing high levels of transactions.
It allows the use of data in motion, allowing data to propagate from one source to another while it is in motion.
These are financial transactions, so we do not want to lose the message at any cost.
There is a saying that for the last 30 years IBM MQ has never been hacked.
It's time-tested, very stable, highly resilient, and has all the features to troubleshoot even if something goes wrong.
The solution's ability to decouple message producers and consumers allows us to have high cohesion and low coupling, making it an excellent solution for that purpose.
 

Mindshare comparison

Streaming Analytics Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Apache Kafka3.7%
Apache Flink14.8%
Databricks12.5%
Other69.0%
Streaming Analytics
Message Queue (MQ) Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
IBM MQ25.5%
ActiveMQ25.1%
Red Hat AMQ9.5%
Other39.9%
Message Queue (MQ) Software
Event Monitoring Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
PubSub+ Platform0.3%
ServiceNow IT Operations Management17.2%
OpsRamp14.0%
Other68.5%
Event Monitoring
 

Featured Reviews

Snehasish Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Data streaming transforms real-time data movement with impressive scalability
I worked with Apache Kafka for customers in the financial industry and OTT platforms. They use Kafka particularly for data streaming. Companies offering movie and entertainment as a service, similar to Netflix, use Kafka Apache Kafka offers unique data streaming. It allows the use of data in…
David Pizinger - PeerSpot reviewer
Has faced unexpected VM restarts but continues to deliver messages reliably
I'm not sure if we've utilized IBM MQ's high availability. Our MQ VMs are set up in clusters, and I think our queue managers are set up in pairs. However, I don't know if we actually use any specific high availability features of IBM MQ that are out of the box. We have it architected with high availability because we use F5 load balancers, and everything about our architecture is highly available. I haven't personally used the management tools with IBM MQ, but we do have them, and our middleware folks leverage them. I can't really comment on them because I don't use them myself. I don't think the management tools help optimize message flows, and I'm not really aware of how they help in this. I'm not familiar with dynamic routing for IBM MQ.
BhanuChidigam - PeerSpot reviewer
Performs well, high availability, and helpful support
We use approximately four people for the maintenance of the solution. My advice to others is this solution has high throughput and is used for many stock exchanges. For business critical use cases, such as processing financial transactions at a quick speed, I would recommend this solution. I rate PubSub+ Event Broker an eight out of ten.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
869,952 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
5%
Financial Services Firm
35%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
4%
Financial Services Firm
30%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
10%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise47
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business19
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise146
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise12
 

Questions from the Community

What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data...
What do you like most about Apache Kafka?
Apache Kafka is an open-source solution that can be used for messaging or event processing.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Kafka?
Its pricing is reasonable. It's not always about cost, but about meeting specific needs.
What is MQ software?
Hi As someone with 45+ years of experience in the Transaction and Message Processing world, I have seen many "MQ" sol...
How does IBM MQ compare with VMware RabbitMQ?
IBM MQ has a great reputation behind it, and this solution is very robust with great stability. It is easy to use, si...
What do you like most about IBM MQ?
The feature I find most effective for ensuring message delivery without loss is the backup threshold. This feature al...
What needs improvement with PubSub+ Event Broker?
Regarding improving the PubSub+ Platform, I'm not sure about the pricing aspect, but I heard that it is quite expensi...
What is your primary use case for PubSub+ Event Broker?
My typical use case for the PubSub+ Platform is as an event-driven solution for communication between two components.
What advice do you have for others considering PubSub+ Event Broker?
I have experience working with Kafka, PubSub+ Platform, and IBM MQ, all three of them. We are customers, meaning my c...
 

Also Known As

No data available
WebSphere MQ
PubSub+ Event Broker, PubSub+ Event Portal
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Uber, Netflix, Activision, Spotify, Slack, Pinterest
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
FxPro, TP ICAP, Barclays, Airtel, American Express, Cobalt, Legal & General, LSE Group, Akuna Capital, Azure Information Technology, Brand.net, Canadian Securities Exchange, Core Transport Technologies, Crédit Agricole, Fluent Trade Technologies, Harris Corporation, Korea Exchange, Live E!, Mercuria Energy, Myspace, NYSE Technologies, Pico, RBC Capital Markets, Standard Chartered Bank, Unibet 
Find out what your peers are saying about Databricks, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Confluent and others in Streaming Analytics. Updated: September 2025.
869,952 professionals have used our research since 2012.