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
Top 10
2022-12-06T12:03:51Z
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
Top 5
2022-11-01T20:29:07Z
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.
Engineering Manager / Lead Software Engineer at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 10
2022-09-20T16:33:03Z
Sep 20, 2022
The reason we chose SQS was the fact that it was just simpler to set up. Actually, I think there's a good case for saying, "If you're using it for a serious application, you might actually want to go with Kafka or Kinesis." We used it for two separate purposes within our main application. We would have used it in more places if we had more use cases for it. However, I also think if we had been expecting tens of thousands of people per day, then we might have chosen a different product, something a bit more battle-tested in terms of scale. This is a pretty simple to use service as long as you're aware of your use case requirements in terms of ordering, delivery, and how many times it's safe to deliver your messages. Do you need exactly once, more than once, or zero? Whether or not you should look at this solution as an option depends on what kind of guarantees you need. I would rate this solution as a seven 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...
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.
The reason we chose SQS was the fact that it was just simpler to set up. Actually, I think there's a good case for saying, "If you're using it for a serious application, you might actually want to go with Kafka or Kinesis." We used it for two separate purposes within our main application. We would have used it in more places if we had more use cases for it. However, I also think if we had been expecting tens of thousands of people per day, then we might have chosen a different product, something a bit more battle-tested in terms of scale. This is a pretty simple to use service as long as you're aware of your use case requirements in terms of ordering, delivery, and how many times it's safe to deliver your messages. Do you need exactly once, more than once, or zero? Whether or not you should look at this solution as an option depends on what kind of guarantees you need. I would rate this solution as a seven 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.