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."The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"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."
"This initial setup is not complex at all. Deploying it was very easy."
"Whenever payments are happening, such as incoming payments to the bank, we need to notify the customer. With MQ we can actually do that asynchronously. We don't want to notify the customer for each and every payment but, rather, more like once a day. That kind of thing can be enabled with the help of MQ."
"The usability of the solution is very good."
"It is useful for exchanging information between applications."
"The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is transaction processing."
"The MQ protocol is widely used across multiple applications and it's so simple for connectivity."
"I haven't seen any issues with respect to the message loss."
"The most valuable features are RDQM and queue sharing."
"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 solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"Support could be improved."
"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 clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment."
"IBM could revamp the interface. The API is huge, but some developers find it limiting because of the cost. They tend to wrap the API course into the JMS, which means they're missing out on some good features. They should work a little bit on the API exposure."
"There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things."
"They need to add the ability to send full messages (header + payload) from the MQ Explorer program, not just the payload."
"If they could have some front-end monitoring tool that could be easily available for the team to use, that could be great."
"IBM MQ could improve by adding more protocols or APIs for a standard application, such as MuleSoft."
"We have had scalability issues with some projects in the past."
"Should have more integration in the monitoring tools."
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 Apache Kafka, Redis, 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 Anypoint 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.
