We performed a comparison between Amazon MQ and Amazon SQS 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."The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations."
"The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective."
"It is stable and scalable."
"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"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."
"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."
"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"Amazon MQ is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises. It's open-source software, which means it's cheaper than its competitors."
"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."
"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 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."
"The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases."
"I cannot send a message to multiple people simultaneously. It can only be sent to one recipient."
"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
Amazon MQ is ranked 9th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while Amazon SQS is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 13 reviews. Amazon MQ is rated 8.4, while Amazon SQS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon MQ writes "Provides you with a URL where you can either send or retrieve messages". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". Amazon MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware Tanzu Data Services, IBM MQ, Red Hat AMQ and EMQX, whereas Amazon SQS is most compared with Apache Kafka, Redis, Anypoint MQ, Oracle Event Hub Cloud Service and ActiveMQ. See our Amazon MQ vs. Amazon SQS 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.
