We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ 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."For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"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."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective."
"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."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"The clustering for sure needs improvement. When we were using it, the only thing available was an active/passive relationship that had to be maintained via shared file storage. That model includes a single point of failure in that storage medium."
"There are some stability issues."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"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."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"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."
"From the TPS point of view, it's like 100,000 transactions that need to be admitted from different devices and also from the different minor small systems. Those are best fit for Kafka. We have used it on the customer side, and we thought of giving a try to ActiveMQ, but we have to do a lot of performance tests and approval is required before we can use it for this scale."
"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"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 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."
"Sending or receiving messages takes some time, and it could be quicker."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases."
"Support could be improved."
ActiveMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Amazon SQS is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 13 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Amazon SQS is rated 8.2. 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 Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware Tanzu Data Services and Apache Kafka, whereas Amazon SQS is most compared with Redis, Apache Kafka, Amazon MQ, Anypoint MQ and IBM MQ. See our ActiveMQ 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.
