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."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."
"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication 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."
"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."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"It provides the best support services."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"Apache Kafka is actually a distributed commit log. That is different than most messaging and queuing systems before it."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is Kafka Connect."
"The most valuable feature is that it can handle high volume."
"All the features of Apache Kafka are valuable, I cannot single out one feature."
"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 is a stable solution...A lot of my experience indicates that Apache Kafka is scalable."
"The solution is very easy to set up."
"The connectors provided by the solution are valuable."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."
"There are some stability issues."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"Apache Kafka has performance issues that cause it to lag."
"Kafka requires non-trivial expertise with DevOps to deploy in production at scale. The organization needs to understand ZooKeeper and Kafka and should consider using additional tools, such as MirrorMaker, so that the organization can survive an availability zone or a region going down."
"The manageability should be improved. There are lots of things we need to manage and it should have a function that enables us to manage them all cohesively."
"If the graphical user interface was easier for the Kafka administration it would be much better. Right now, you need to use the program with the command-line interface. If the graphical user interface was easier, it could be a better product."
"While the solution scales well and easily, you need to understand your future needs and prep for the peaks."
"I suggest using cloud services because the solution is expensive if you are using it on-premises."
"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."
"Kafka is a nightmare to administer."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 76 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 "Great access to multiple devices, with stability, at an affordable price". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and Amazon SQS, 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.
