No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Azure IoT Hub vs EMQX comparison

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

Azure IoT Hub
Ranking in IoT Connectivity
8th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
EMQX
Ranking in IoT Connectivity
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Message Queue (MQ) Software (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

Use Azure IoT Hub?
Leave a review
AP
Senior Software Engineer
Connected millions of iot devices and manage real time pub sub control and flexible access rules
When going with the open-source EMQX version, there are limitations provided. For example, the webhooks use case cannot be scaled to as large a scale compared to the enterprise edition of EMQX. The open-source version helps a great deal with work in the company. The way this resource helps nurture the IoT device paradigm is greatly helpful for developers working newly on this system because the onboarding part of EMQX is very easy and developer-friendly. Someone who wants to dive into it can easily implement and make the system robust based on the technologies it provides. EMQX provides API connections for applications. HTTP calls can be made to EMQX to get updates from the client. Those connections should be made asynchronously. The webhook part handles this well, but when it comes to the API part, when the load and payload of the MQTT topics and messages are very heavy, sometimes unknown errors occur, and logs and errors must be found. When a specific log session is created for that client, the readability of those logs is not good. The platform itself does not need improvement, but when it comes to developer-friendly implementations of EMQX, there are some pain points that need attention. The visibility of logs, error logs, and information logs inside the built-in monitoring needs work because developers, when they implement code or any kind of specific tools, need proper control over the system. Without that control, there is no point in implementing anything at all. The monitoring part needs work. When it comes to the flow chart of how different clients are connected with different devices, there is a feature inside EMQX called Flow. When that Flow is in place, clients (devices) should be controllable from that Flow itself. These are the most important improvements that need to be addressed.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IoT Connectivity solutions are best for your needs.
899,125 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Media Company
19%
Legal Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for EMQX?
We have seen specific outcomes such as cost savings since switching to EMQX, as we are using it for trial purposes and have some licenses based on our usage, meaning we do not need to pay for what ...
What needs improvement with EMQX?
I think EMQX can be improved by providing a uniform UI and login feature that we can use in the dashboard. Additionally, it seems to be a single tenant setup. If we are using a multi-tenant structu...
What is your primary use case for EMQX?
My main use case for EMQX is using it as a broker for MQTT. In our projects, we use EMQX as an MQTT broker because we are an IoT-based company where devices are provisioned or connected to our clou...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview