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 the tool in interface integrations."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"I appreciate that Amazon SQS is fully integrated with Amazon and can be accessed through normal functions or serverless functions, making it very user-friendly. Additionally, the features are comparable to those of other solutions."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"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 is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity."
"Reliability is the most valuable feature. MQ is used to support critical business applications."
"The most valuable feature is the stability. It's perfect in this way."
"I like the architecture it provides seamlessly for assured delivery."
"IBM MQ is robust compared to other products in the market. It also gives you support from the IBM team."
"The most valuable feature is that it's a very strong integration platform but it is quite a monolithic solution. It's got everything."
"The initial setup of Amazon SQS is in the middle range of difficulty. You need to learn Amazon AWS and know how to navigate, create resources, and structures, and provide rules."
"As a company that uses IBM solutions, it's difficult to compare Amazon SQS to other solutions. We have been using IBM solutions for a long time and they are very mature in integration and queuing. In my role as an integration manager, I can say that Amazon SQS is designed primarily for use within the Amazon ecosystem and does not have the same level of functionality as IBM MQ or other similar products. It has limited connectivity options and does not easily integrate with legacy systems."
"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"Sending or receiving messages takes some time, and it could be quicker."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"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."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ."
"The issue is that they're using a very old clustering model."
"The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory."
"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."
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"I can't say pricing is good."
"They could integrate monitoring into the solution, a bit more than they do now. Currently, they have opened the REST API so you can get statistic and accounting information and details from MQ and build your own monitoring, if you want. IBM can improve the solution in this direction."
"Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues."
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.
