We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and IBM Event Streams 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."
"I appreciate many features including queue, topic, durable topic, and selectors. I also value a different support for different protocols such as MQTT and AMQP. It has full support for EIP, REST, Message Groups, UDP, and TCP."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"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 stability has been good."
"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."
"I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"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."
"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."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"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."
"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."
"One potential area would be the complexity of the initial setup."
"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."
"It would be helpful if they could help us explain why they, as in, the customers, should use the product and the overall benefits."
"The product's interface needs improvement."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while IBM Event Streams is ranked 11th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while IBM Event Streams 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 IBM Event Streams writes "Easy to use, stable, has a good interface, and the security is good". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and Amazon SQS, whereas IBM Event Streams is most compared with Apache Kafka, Red Hat AMQ and IBM MQ. See our ActiveMQ vs. IBM Event Streams 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.
