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."Reliable message delivery and mirroring."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"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 valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance."
"As a software developer, I have found Apache Kafka's support to be the most valuable...The solution is easy to integrate with any of our systems."
"It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all."
"The most valuable feature is the documentation, which is good and clear."
"The main advantage is increased reliability, particularly with regard to data and the speed with which messages are published to the other side."
"Scalability is very good."
"I like Kafka's flexibility, stability, reliability, and robustness."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is its versatility. It can solve many use cases or can be a part of many use cases. Its fundamental value of it is in the real-time processing capability."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"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."
"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."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"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."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"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."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"There is a lot of information available for the solution and it can be overwhelming to sort through."
"Kafka does not provide control over the message queue, so we do not know whether we are experiencing lost or duplicate messages."
"The UI is based on command line. It would be helpful if they could come up with a simpler user interface."
"We struggled a bit with the built-in data transformations because it was a challenge to get them up and running the way we wanted."
"An area for improvement would be growth."
"One complexity that I faced with the tool stems from the fact that since it is not kind of a stand-alone application, it won't integrate with native cloud, like AWS or Azure."
"Some vendors don't offer extra features for monitoring."
"Apache Kafka can improve by providing a UI for monitoring. There are third-party tools that can do it, but it would be nice if it was already embedded within Apache Kafka."
ActiveMQ is ranked 4th 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.
