We performed a comparison between Amazon SQS and IBM MQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We use SNS as the publisher, and our procurement service subscribes to those events using SQS. In the past, we relied on time-based or batch-based processes to send data between services on-premises. With SQS, we can trigger actions based on real-time changes in business processes, improving reliability."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"We use the tool in interface integrations."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"One of the useful features is the ability to schedule a call after a certain number of messages accumulate in the container. For example, if there are ten messages in the container, you can perform a specific action."
"The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
"The methodology and the way in which the platform has been produced as a standard is most valuable. There are so many different versions of it now, but the actual basic functionality and the simplicity of it have made it far easier to be implemented in so many different instances. When I worked with the OS/2 or PS/2 machine environment, the messaging mechanisms were based upon IBM MQ. It is so versatile, which is the main reason that I'm a fan of it."
"RabbitMQ and Kafka require more steps for setup than IBM MQ. Installation of the IBM product is very simple."
"Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."
"The message queue and the integration with any development platform/language, i.e., NET and Java, are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing."
"This product has good security."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"I cannot send a message to multiple people simultaneously. It can only be sent to one recipient."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"Support could be improved."
"I do not think that this solution is easy to use and the documentation of this solution has a lot of problems and can be improved in the next release. Most of the time, the images in the document are from older versions."
"Sending or receiving messages takes some time, and it could be quicker."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"Presenting and maybe having some different options for different user experiences based on the administrative duties that you have to do as an app manager or configure the server or security would be an improvement."
"I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution."
"It's not always easy for applications to connect to IBM MQ, but I think it's fine in general."
"We are looking at the latest version, and we hope that resilience, high availability, and monitoring will be improved. It can have some more improvements in the heterogeneous messaging feature. The current solution is on-premises, so good integration with public cloud messaging solutions would be useful."
"It needs a User Interface which is better than the aging MQ Explorer. The existing solution MQ Explorer is outdated."
"Scaling is difficult with IBM MQ."
"The issue is that they're using a very old clustering model."
"IBM HQ's scalability isn't the best."
Amazon SQS is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 13 reviews while IBM MQ is ranked 2nd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 158 reviews. Amazon SQS is rated 8.2, while IBM MQ is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM MQ writes "Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method". Amazon SQS is most compared with Redis, Apache Kafka, Amazon MQ, Anypoint MQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas IBM MQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, Red Hat AMQ and Amazon MQ. See our Amazon SQS vs. IBM MQ 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.
