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."Message broadcasting: There could be a use case sending the same message to all consumers. So as a producer, I broadcast the message to a topic. Then, whichever consumers are subscribed to the topic can consume the same message."
"Reliable message delivery and mirroring."
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"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 this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"I am impressed with the tool’s latency. Also, the messages in ActiveMQ wait in a queue. The messages will start to move when the system reopens after getting stuck."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"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."
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"One of the useful features is the ability to schedule a call after a certain number of messages accumulate in the container. For example, if there are ten messages in the container, you can perform a specific action."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"We use the tool in interface integrations."
"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective."
"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."
"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"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."
"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."
"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 rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"There are some stability issues."
"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"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."
"Sending or receiving messages takes some time, and it could be quicker."
"Support could be improved."
"I cannot send a message to multiple people simultaneously. It can only be sent to one recipient."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Amazon SQS is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 12 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Amazon SQS 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 Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and Redis, whereas Amazon SQS is most compared with Apache Kafka, Redis, Amazon MQ, Anypoint MQ and PubSub+ Event Broker. 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.
