We performed a comparison between Amazon MQ 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."The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations."
"Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution."
"The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"valuable features relate to microservices architecture and working on KStream and KSQL DB as a microservices event bus."
"It eases our current data flow and framework."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"I like Kafka's flexibility, stability, reliability, and robustness."
"With Kafka, events and streaming are persistent, and multiple subscribers can consume the data. This is an advantage of Kafka compared to simple queue-based solutions."
"I like the performance and reliability of Kafka. I needed a data streaming buffer that could handle thousands of messages per second with at least one processing point for an analytics pipeline. Kafka fits this requirement very well."
"It's very easy to keep to install and it's pretty stable."
"It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all."
"Amazon MQ is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises. It's open-source software, which means it's cheaper than its competitors."
"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"Apache Kafka can improve by making the documentation more user-friendly. It would be beneficial if we could explain to customers in more detail how the solution operates but the documentation get highly technical quickly. For example, if they had a simple page where we can show the customers how it works without the need for the customer to have a computer science background."
"I suggest using cloud services because the solution is expensive if you are using it on-premises."
"I would like them to reduce the learning curve around the creation of brokers and topics. They also need to improve on the concept of the partitions."
"Maintaining and configuring Apache Kafka can be challenging, especially when you want to fine-tune its behavior."
"Too much dependency on the zookeeper and leader selection is still the bottleneck for Kafka implementation."
"One of the things I am mostly looking for is that once the message is picked up from Kafka, it should not be visible or able to be consumed by other applications, or something along those lines. That feature is not present, but it is not a limitation or anything of the sort; rather, it is a desirable feature. The next release should include a feature that prevents messages from being consumed by other applications once they are picked up by Kafka."
"Apache Kafka could improve data loss and compatibility with Spark."
"Kafka is a nightmare to administer."
Amazon MQ is ranked 9th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 78 reviews. Amazon MQ is rated 8.4, while Apache Kafka is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Amazon MQ writes "Provides you with a URL where you can either send or retrieve messages". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". Amazon MQ is most compared with Amazon SQS, VMware Tanzu Data Services, IBM MQ, Red Hat AMQ and EMQX, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and Oracle Data Integrator (ODI). See our Amazon MQ 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.
