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 is a stable solution...A lot of my experience indicates that Apache Kafka is scalable."
"The most valuable features of the solution revolve around areas like the latency part, where the tool offers very little latency and the sequencing part."
"The solution is very scalable. We started with a cluster of three and then scaled it to seven."
"With Kafka, events and streaming are persistent, and multiple subscribers can consume the data. This is an advantage of Kafka compared to simple queue-based solutions."
"Ease of use."
"Kafka's most valuable feature is its user-friendliness."
"The publisher-subscriber pattern and low latency are also essential features that greatly piqued my interest."
"I have seen a return on investment with this solution."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"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."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"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."
"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."
"Reliability is the main criterion for selecting this tool for one of the busiest airports in Mumbai."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"Apache Kafka could improve data loss and compatibility with Spark."
"The management overhead is more compared to the messaging system. There are challenges here and there. Like for long usage, it requires restarts and nodes from time to time."
"The manageability should be improved. There are lots of things we need to manage and it should have a function that enables us to manage them all cohesively."
"One of the things I am mostly looking for is that once the message is picked up from Kafka, it should not be visible or able to be consumed by other applications, or something along those lines. That feature is not present, but it is not a limitation or anything of the sort; rather, it is a desirable feature. The next release should include a feature that prevents messages from being consumed by other applications once they are picked up by Kafka."
"There have been some challenges with monitoring Apache Kafka, as there are currently only a few production-grade solutions available, which are all under enterprise license and therefore not easily accessible. The speaker has not had access to any of these solutions and has instead relied on tools, such as Dynatrace, which do not provide sufficient insight into the Apache Kafka system. While there are other tools available, they do not offer the same level of real-time data as enterprise solutions."
"The initial setup and deployment could be less complex."
"The model where you create the integration or the integration scenario needs improvement."
"Too much dependency on the zookeeper and leader selection is still the bottleneck for Kafka implementation."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
"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."
"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."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"The challenge is the multiple components it has. This brings a higher complexity compared to IBM MQ, which is a single complete unit."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
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.