We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Apache Kafka 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."I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"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."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"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."
"Reliable message delivery and mirroring."
"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."
"The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."
"The most valuable feature is the support for a high volume of data."
"The most valuable features are the stream API, consumer groups, and the way that the scaling takes place."
"Apache Kafka's most valuable features include clustering and sharding...It is a pretty stable solution."
"The publisher-subscriber pattern and low latency are also essential features that greatly piqued my interest."
"I have seen a return on investment with this solution."
"Robust and delivers messages quickly."
"The main advantage is increased reliability, particularly with regard to data and the speed with which messages are published to the other side."
"Good horizontal scaling and design."
"The solution's stability needs improvement."
"I would like the tool to improve compliance and stability. We will encounter issues while using the central applications. In the solution's future releases, I want to control and set limitations for databases."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"One potential area would be the complexity of the initial setup."
"The tool needs to improve its installation part which is lengthy. The product is already working on that aspect so that the complete installation gets completed within a month."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"Stability of the API and the technical support could be improved."
"The price for the enterprise version is quite high. It would be better to have a lower price."
"More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve."
"The manageability should be improved. There are lots of things we need to manage and it should have a function that enables us to manage them all cohesively."
"Kafka's interface could also use some work. Some of our products are in C, and we don't have any libraries to use with C. From an interface perspective, we had a library from the readies. And we are streaming some of the products we built to readies. That is one of the requirements. It would be good to have those libraries available in a future release for our C++ clients or public libraries, so we can include them in our product and build on that."
"As an open-source project, Kafka is still fairly young and has not yet built out the stability and features that other open-source projects have acquired over the many years. If done correctly, Kafka can also take over the stream-processing space that technologies such as Apache Storm cover."
"Kafka has a lot of monitors, but sometimes it's most important to just have a simple monitor."
"Observability could be improved."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 78 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Apache Kafka is rated 8.0. 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 Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, Amazon SQS and Redis, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and Amazon MQ. See our ActiveMQ 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.