Overall, I would rate Amazon SQS as ten out of ten. It efficiently manages asynchronous communication and integrates well with other AWS ( /products/amazon-aws-reviews ) services, resulting in excellent performance.
AWS Academy Accredited Instructor - ACF & CCA at APU
Real User
Top 5
Jan 3, 2025
Overall, I'd rate it nine out of ten. The serverless stack offered by AWS provides me with good guidance. Serverless patterns from AWS need better reference. Cloud adoption will have general discussions, but more proprietary cloud frameworks should learn from serverless tech, facilitating infrastructure as code. Open-source frameworks for building serverless applications are beneficial for setting up full stack apps promptly.
AWS Architect at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Nov 25, 2024
I would recommend Amazon SQS, especially for designing decoupled systems where one component doesn't depend on another. It's an optimal choice for high availability and reliably handling queuing mechanisms. In terms of size and scalability, SQS excels. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
I would recommend Amazon SQS as it is a good product. However, the choice between SQS and other AWS services like Kinesis should be based on data requirements and organizational needs. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
AWS subscription includes the deployment of the tool along with other services, making it comprehensive under one device. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
I would recommend this product as it is a basic essential in event-driven architecture design. It is cost-effective, reliable, and straightforward. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
I'd advise new users to look at the documentation and try to understand the basic queue and the implementation in Amazon SQS. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
Using queues in an infrastructure is a good idea for certain scenarios. If you're going to use AWS and need queues, then Amazon SQS is the solution. I would recommend its use if you have simple enough needs. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
Senior DevOps Engineer | AWS | Kubernetes | Terraform | CICD | Cyber Security Specialist at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
Oct 7, 2024
I would recommend Amazon SQS to others because it is a cloud-native service with full-time support and extensive documentation. There aren't many issues with it, and updates are generally not disruptive. However, the challenge lies in managing the decoupled nature of the application, which can complicate operations. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
Anyone with a basic cloud experience can use the solution. I would recommend Amazon SQS for any support project that needs message queuing and faster and more reliable processing. Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.
Web Solution Architect at a comms service provider with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 20
May 24, 2024
One person is enough for the solution's maintenance. We don't have to maintain our tooling system, which was quite flaky. We had problems with high availability, and when we covered the below balance of the Reddit cluster, we sometimes encountered cases where the job was executed twice. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Initially, we didn't have any code. Our lead engineers had the most knowledge about our system. We decided to pursue a customized design due to cost concerns. We soon realized that we could not focus on our product because we were constantly distracted by tasks such as deployments and managing scalability. That's why we decided to transition to SQS fully. SQS provides scalability and fixes related issues. Whenever we require a set of messages, we need to set them up in our system, and SQS takes care of the rest. The keys are functioning perfectly fine for now. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Users need to check the number of messages. Since the solution works on a pay-as-you-go model, it could be expensive if the number of messages is very large. Overall, I rate Amazon SQS a nine out of ten.
If you only have one job to run, I would recommend using it. However, if you need to handle multiple jobs, I would not recommend it. Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten. Since it doesn't support sending the same message to multiple subscribers, it lacks usefulness in certain cases.
Solutions Architect at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Dec 6, 2022
I would definitely suggest carrying out cost estimations prior to purchase because if you need it for a very high number of requests per month, the costs might be significantly higher and not worth it. In that event, it may be worth looking at ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ, where you can better control licensing costs. That said, this is a very good solution for us. I rate this solution eight out of 10.
Senior Software Developer at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Nov 1, 2022
This is a free-to-use solution for somebody who wants to do 1 million requests, and this is sufficient for any application at a small organization. It's cost-effective, reliable, and easily scalable. I rate Amazon SQS an eight out of ten.
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) is a fully managed message queuing service that enables you to decouple and scale microservices, distributed systems, and serverless applications. SQS eliminates the complexity and overhead associated with managing and operating message oriented middleware, and empowers developers to focus on differentiating work. Using SQS, you can send, store, and receive messages between software components at any volume, without losing messages or requiring other...
I would recommend Amazon SQS to other people. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 10.
Overall, I would rate Amazon SQS as ten out of ten. It efficiently manages asynchronous communication and integrates well with other AWS ( /products/amazon-aws-reviews ) services, resulting in excellent performance.
Overall, I'd rate it nine out of ten. The serverless stack offered by AWS provides me with good guidance. Serverless patterns from AWS need better reference. Cloud adoption will have general discussions, but more proprietary cloud frameworks should learn from serverless tech, facilitating infrastructure as code. Open-source frameworks for building serverless applications are beneficial for setting up full stack apps promptly.
I would recommend Amazon SQS, especially for designing decoupled systems where one component doesn't depend on another. It's an optimal choice for high availability and reliably handling queuing mechanisms. In terms of size and scalability, SQS excels. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
I would recommend Amazon SQS as it is a good product. However, the choice between SQS and other AWS services like Kinesis should be based on data requirements and organizational needs. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
AWS subscription includes the deployment of the tool along with other services, making it comprehensive under one device. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
I would recommend this product as it is a basic essential in event-driven architecture design. It is cost-effective, reliable, and straightforward. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
I'd advise new users to look at the documentation and try to understand the basic queue and the implementation in Amazon SQS. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.
Using queues in an infrastructure is a good idea for certain scenarios. If you're going to use AWS and need queues, then Amazon SQS is the solution. I would recommend its use if you have simple enough needs. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
I would recommend Amazon SQS to others because it is a cloud-native service with full-time support and extensive documentation. There aren't many issues with it, and updates are generally not disruptive. However, the challenge lies in managing the decoupled nature of the application, which can complicate operations. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
Anyone with a basic cloud experience can use the solution. I would recommend Amazon SQS for any support project that needs message queuing and faster and more reliable processing. Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.
One person is enough for the solution's maintenance. We don't have to maintain our tooling system, which was quite flaky. We had problems with high availability, and when we covered the below balance of the Reddit cluster, we sometimes encountered cases where the job was executed twice. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Initially, we didn't have any code. Our lead engineers had the most knowledge about our system. We decided to pursue a customized design due to cost concerns. We soon realized that we could not focus on our product because we were constantly distracted by tasks such as deployments and managing scalability. That's why we decided to transition to SQS fully. SQS provides scalability and fixes related issues. Whenever we require a set of messages, we need to set them up in our system, and SQS takes care of the rest. The keys are functioning perfectly fine for now. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Users need to check the number of messages. Since the solution works on a pay-as-you-go model, it could be expensive if the number of messages is very large. Overall, I rate Amazon SQS a nine out of ten.
If you only have one job to run, I would recommend using it. However, if you need to handle multiple jobs, I would not recommend it. Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten. Since it doesn't support sending the same message to multiple subscribers, it lacks usefulness in certain cases.
I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.
I would give SQS a rating of nine out of ten.
I rate Amazon SQS a six out of ten.
I would definitely suggest carrying out cost estimations prior to purchase because if you need it for a very high number of requests per month, the costs might be significantly higher and not worth it. In that event, it may be worth looking at ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ, where you can better control licensing costs. That said, this is a very good solution for us. I rate this solution eight out of 10.
This is a free-to-use solution for somebody who wants to do 1 million requests, and this is sufficient for any application at a small organization. It's cost-effective, reliable, and easily scalable. I rate Amazon SQS an eight out of ten.
We are a customer and an end-user. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
The security of a cloud solution is very important and attention must be given to profile management, key generation, and key protection.