We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Redis 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."Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"I appreciate many features including queue, topic, durable topic, and selectors. I also value a different support for different protocols such as MQTT and AMQP. It has full support for EIP, REST, Message Groups, UDP, and TCP."
"I am impressed with the tool’s latency. Also, the messages in ActiveMQ wait in a queue. The messages will start to move when the system reopens after getting stuck."
"There is a vibrant community, and it is one of the strongest points of this product. We always get answers to our problems. So, my experience with the community support has been good."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"The solution's technical support team is good...The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"The in-memory data makes it fast."
"The product offers fast access to my database."
"The ability to fetch and save data quickly is valuable."
"The online interface is very fast and easy to use."
"It makes operations more efficient. The information processing is very fast, and very responsive. It's all about the technology."
"Redis is better tested and is used by large companies. I haven't found a direct alternative to what Redis offers. Plus, there are a lot of support and learning resources available, which help you use Redis efficiently."
"The most valuable features of Redis are its ease of use and speed. It does not have access to the disc and it is fast."
"The clustering for sure needs improvement. When we were using it, the only thing available was an active/passive relationship that had to be maintained via shared file storage. That model includes a single point of failure in that storage medium."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"It would be great if it is included as part of the solution, as Kafka is doing. Even though the use case of Kafka is different, If something like data extraction is possible, or if we can experiment with partition tolerance and other such things, that will be great."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"From the TPS point of view, it's like 100,000 transactions that need to be admitted from different devices and also from the different minor small systems. Those are best fit for Kafka. We have used it on the customer side, and we thought of giving a try to ActiveMQ, but we have to do a lot of performance tests and approval is required before we can use it for this scale."
"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"In future releases, I would like Redis to provide its users with an option like schema validation. Currently, the solution lacks to offer such functionality."
"If we use a lot of data, it will eventually cost us a lot."
"I would prefer it if there was more information available about Redis. That would make it easier for new beginners. Currently, there is a lack of resources."
"The initial setup took some time as our technical team needed to familiarize themselves with Redis."
"There is a lack of documentation on the scalability of the solution."
"It's actually quite expensive."
"Sometimes, we use Redis as a cluster, and the clusters can sometimes suffer some issues and bring some downtime to your application."
"The development of clusters could improve. Additionally, it would be helpful if it was integrated with Amazon AWS or Google Cloud."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Redis is ranked 7th in Database as a Service with 9 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Redis is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "Allows for asynchronous communication, enabling services to operate independently but issues with stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Redis writes "Performs much better than traditional databases, integrates well and lot of learning resources available ". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Redis is most compared with Google Cloud Memorystore, Amazon SQS, Chroma, Faiss and OpenSearch. See our ActiveMQ vs. Redis 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.
