We performed a comparison between Amazon MQ 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."The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution."
"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."
"We use SNS as the publisher, and our procurement service subscribes to those events using SQS. In the past, we relied on time-based or batch-based processes to send data between services on-premises. With SQS, we can trigger actions based on real-time changes in business processes, improving reliability."
"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."
"There is no setup just some easy configuration required."
"The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective."
"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."
"It is stable and scalable."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"We use the tool in interface integrations."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"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 tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"Sending or receiving messages takes some time, and it could be quicker."
"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."
"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"Support could be improved."
"The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
Amazon MQ is ranked 9th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews while Amazon SQS is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 13 reviews. Amazon MQ is rated 8.4, while Amazon SQS is rated 8.2. 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 Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". Amazon MQ is most compared with Apache Kafka, VMware RabbitMQ, IBM MQ, Red Hat AMQ and EMQX, whereas Amazon SQS is most compared with Apache Kafka, Redis, Anypoint MQ, Oracle Event Hub Cloud Service and IBM MQ. See our Amazon MQ 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.
