We compared Apache Kafka and Amazon SQS based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Apache Kafka stands out for its high scalability, fault-tolerant architecture, real-time data handling, stream processing, and data replication support. On the other hand, Amazon SQS is praised for its reliability, scalability, and ability to decouple application components seamlessly. While Apache Kafka offers easy integration with programming languages and frameworks, Amazon SQS provides efficient message handling for large volumes. Overall, Apache Kafka focuses on real-time data processing and stream processing, while Amazon SQS emphasizes reliable message handling and decoupling application components.
Features: Apache Kafka is highly valued for its high scalability, fault-tolerant architecture, and support for real-time data handling. It also offers seamless integration with programming languages and frameworks, and functionalities like stream processing and data replication. On the other hand, Amazon SQS is highly appreciated for its reliability, scalability, and the ability to decouple different components of an application, allowing for seamless integration and flexibility. It efficiently handles large volumes of messages.
Pricing and ROI: The available data did not provide any information about the setup cost for Apache Kafka. There were no details about the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Amazon SQS from the reviewers., The ROI reviews for Apache Kafka are missing or unavailable, while for Amazon SQS, they are not available.
Room for Improvement: Apache Kafka: No specific feedback is available regarding areas for improvement. Amazon SQS: No specific feedback or suggestions have been provided for improvement.
Deployment and customer support: The given data source does not provide any user feedback specifically about the duration required to establish a new tech solution for Apache Kafka. Similarly, there is no specific information or quotes available regarding the setup time for Amazon SQS., Customer service and support for Apache Kafka cannot be compared as no reviews or feedback are available. Similarly, there are no reviews for customer service of Amazon SQS.
The summary above is based on 46 interviews we conducted recently with Apache Kafka and Amazon SQS users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"We use the tool in interface integrations."
"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."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"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."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"When comparing it with other messaging and integration platforms, this is one of the best rated."
"Resiliency is great and also the fact that it handles different data formats."
"Kafka is scalable. It can manage a high volume of data from many sources."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is Kafka Connect."
"Good horizontal scaling and design."
"Robust and delivers messages quickly."
"Kafka can process messages in real-time, making it useful for applications that require near-instantaneous processing."
"It is the performance that is really meaningful."
"The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases."
"Support could be improved."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"I cannot send a message to multiple people simultaneously. It can only be sent to one recipient."
"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."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"The model where you create the integration or the integration scenario needs improvement."
"It's not possible to substitute IBM MQ with Apache Kafka because the JMS part is not very stable."
"Kafka is complex and there is a little bit of a learning curve."
"Pulsar gives more scalability to an even grouping, but Apache Kafka is used more if you want to send something in a time series-based. If this does not matter to you then Pulsar could be more customizable. Apache Kafka is nothing but a streaming system with local storage."
"Kafka is a nightmare to administer."
"Lacks elasticity and the ability to scale down."
"Managing Apache Kafka can be a challenge, but there are solutions. I used the newest release, as it seems they have removed Zookeeper, which should make it easier. Confluent provides a fully managed Kafka platform, in which the cluster does not need to be managed."
"Data pulling and restart ability need improving."
Amazon SQS is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 13 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 76 reviews. Amazon SQS is rated 8.2, while Apache Kafka is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". Amazon SQS is most compared with Redis, Amazon MQ, Anypoint MQ, Oracle Event Hub Cloud Service and IBM MQ, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and VMware RabbitMQ. See our Amazon SQS vs. Apache Kafka 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.
