We compared Red Hat AMQ and Apache Kafka based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
The user reviews highlight that Red Hat AMQ is praised for its robust messaging capabilities, seamless integration, and excellent scalability, with exceptional customer service and support. In contrast, Apache Kafka is valued for its high scalability and fault-tolerant architecture, real-time data handling, and support for stream processing and data replication. However, Apache Kafka does not have feedback on customer service, pricing, or ROI, unlike Red Hat AMQ, which has some areas for improvement in scalability, ease of deployment, and customization options.
Features: Red Hat AMQ is recognized for its robust messaging capabilities, seamless integration, excellent scalability, reliable performance, and advanced security measures. On the other hand, Apache Kafka stands out for its high scalability, fault-tolerant architecture, real-time data handling, easy integration, support for stream processing and data replication.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Red Hat AMQ is reported to be straightforward and hassle-free, with reasonable pricing. However, there is no available information regarding the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Apache Kafka., Based on user feedback, Red Hat AMQ has a positive ROI with efficient workflow, increased productivity, reduced downtime, and improved message delivery. Apache Kafka's ROI reviews are either missing or unavailable.
Room for Improvement: Red Hat AMQ has room for improvement in scalability, ease of deployment, customization options, documentation, community support, platform stability, monitoring and management capabilities, and security features. In contrast, there is no specific feedback on improvement areas for Apache Kafka.
Deployment and customer support: Comparing the user reviews, Red Hat AMQ users mention varying timeframes for deployment and setup separately. In contrast, there is no information available regarding the duration required for Apache Kafka., Red Hat AMQ is highly regarded for its exceptional customer service and support. Users praise their prompt, friendly, and professional assistance, showcasing a deep understanding of their customers' needs. On the other hand, no feedback is available for Apache Kafka's customer service.
The summary above is based on 39 interviews we conducted recently with Red Hat AMQ and Apache Kafka users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It's an open-source product, which means it doesn't cost us anything to use it."
"It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all."
"The use of Kafka's logging mechanism has been extremely beneficial for us, as it allows us to sequence messages, track pointers, and manage memory without having to create multiple copies."
"The most valuable feature is the support for a high volume of data."
"Kafka's most valuable feature is its user-friendliness."
"It is a stable solution...A lot of my experience indicates that Apache Kafka is scalable."
"I like Kafka's flexibility, stability, reliability, and robustness."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"Reliability is the main criterion for selecting this tool for one of the busiest airports in Mumbai."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day."
"AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"This product is well adopted on the OpenShift platform. For organizations like ours that use OpenShift for many of our products, this is a good feature."
"More adapters for connecting to different systems need to be available."
"Some vendors don't offer extra features for monitoring."
"I would like to see an improvement in authentication management."
"The price for the enterprise version is quite high. It would be better to have a lower price."
"would like to see real-time event-based consumption of messages rather than the traditional way through a loop. The traditional messaging system works by listing and looping with a small wait to check to see what the messages are. A push system is where you have something that is ready to receive a message and when the message comes in and hits the partition, it goes straight to the consumer versus the consumer having to pull. I believe this consumer approach is something they are working on and may come in an upcoming release. However, that is message consumption versus message listening."
"While the solution scales well and easily, you need to understand your future needs and prep for the peaks."
"Kafka's interface could also use some work. Some of our products are in C, and we don't have any libraries to use with C. From an interface perspective, we had a library from the readies. And we are streaming some of the products we built to readies. That is one of the requirements. It would be good to have those libraries available in a future release for our C++ clients or public libraries, so we can include them in our product and build on that."
"Maintaining and configuring Apache Kafka can be challenging, especially when you want to fine-tune its behavior."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
"The challenge is the multiple components it has. This brings a higher complexity compared to IBM MQ, which is a single complete unit."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly."
Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 78 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 8 reviews. Apache Kafka is rated 8.0, while Red Hat AMQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat AMQ writes "A stable, open-source technology, with a convenient deployment". Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Anypoint MQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and VMware Tanzu Data Services, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, IBM MQ, VMware Tanzu Data Services, IBM Event Streams and Amazon MQ. See our Apache Kafka vs. Red Hat AMQ 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.