We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Aurea CX Messenger 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."ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"It provides the best support services."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."
"Reliable message delivery and mirroring."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"The UI. It's both a good thing and a bad thing. The UI is too simple. Sometimes you wanna see the messages coming to the queue, and you have to refresh the dashboard, the console of the product."
"It would be great if it is included as part of the solution, as Kafka is doing. Even though the use case of Kafka is different, If something like data extraction is possible, or if we can experiment with partition tolerance and other such things, that will be great."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"The solution's stability needs improvement."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"There are some stability issues."
"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."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Aurea CX Messenger is ranked 10th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 7 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Aurea CX Messenger is rated 9.0. 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 Aurea CX Messenger writes "Lightweight and efficient solution". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, Amazon SQS and VMware Tanzu Data Services, whereas Aurea CX Messenger is most compared with Mule ESB, Apache Kafka, TIBCO Enterprise Message Service and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator. See our ActiveMQ vs. Aurea CX Messenger 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.
