We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Redis 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 is very lightweight and quick."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."
"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."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"The ability to fetch and save data quickly is valuable."
"The product offers fast access to my database."
"It makes operations more efficient. The information processing is very fast, and very responsive. It's all about the technology."
"The in-memory data makes it fast."
"I use Redis mostly to cache repeated data that is required."
"The most valuable features of Redis are its ease of use and speed. It does not have access to the disc and it is fast."
"The online interface is very fast and easy to use."
"Redis is a simple, powerful, and fast solution."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"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."
"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 solution's stability needs improvement."
"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 does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"The tool should improve by increasing its size limits and handling dynamic data better. We use the client ID or associate it with a key for static content. The solution will not be easy for a beginner. Unless you understand SQL data, it will be difficult to understand and use Redis. It also needs to be user-friendly."
"If we use a lot of data, it will eventually cost us a lot."
"The only thing is the lack of a GUI application. There was a time when we needed to resolve an issue in production. If we had a GUI, it would have been easier."
"The development of clusters could improve. Additionally, it would be helpful if it was integrated with Amazon AWS or Google Cloud."
"It's actually quite expensive."
"The initial setup took some time as our technical team needed to familiarize themselves with Redis."
"Sometimes, we use Redis as a cluster, and the clusters can sometimes suffer some issues and bring some downtime to your application."
"I would prefer it if there was more information available about Redis. That would make it easier for new beginners. Currently, there is a lack of resources."
ActiveMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Redis is ranked 6th in Database as a Service with 11 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Redis is rated 8.4. 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 Redis writes "Enables efficient caching and helps users fetch and save data quickly". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, Amazon SQS and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Redis is most compared with Amazon SQS, Google Cloud Memorystore, Chroma, Faiss and OpenSearch. See our ActiveMQ vs. Redis 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.
