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.
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is Kafka Connect."
"The most valuable feature is the support for a high volume of data."
"The most important feature for me is the guaranteed delivery of messages from producers to consumers."
"Resiliency is great and also the fact that it handles different data formats."
"I have seen a return on investment with this solution."
"The most valuable features are the stream API, consumer groups, and the way that the scaling takes place."
"It is a useful way to maintain messages and to manage offset from our consumers."
"Excellent speeds for publishing messages faster."
"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"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."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"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."
"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."
"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 third party is not very stable and sometimes you have problems with this component. There are some developments in newer versions and we're about to try them out, but I'm not sure if it closes the gap."
"I suggest using cloud services because the solution is expensive if you are using it on-premises."
"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."
"would like to see real-time event-based consumption of messages rather than the traditional way through a loop. The traditional messaging system works by listing and looping with a small wait to check to see what the messages are. A push system is where you have something that is ready to receive a message and when the message comes in and hits the partition, it goes straight to the consumer versus the consumer having to pull. I believe this consumer approach is something they are working on and may come in an upcoming release. However, that is message consumption versus message listening."
"Observability could be improved."
"The model where you create the integration or the integration scenario needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 77 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 7 reviews. Apache Kafka is rated 8.0, while Red Hat AMQ is rated 8.2. 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.
