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."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."
"The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"The most important feature for me is the guaranteed delivery of messages from producers to consumers."
"A great streaming platform."
"The use of Kafka's logging mechanism has been extremely beneficial for us, as it allows us to sequence messages, track pointers, and manage memory without having to create multiple copies."
"Excellent speeds for publishing messages faster."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance."
"Kafka's most valuable feature is its user-friendliness."
"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."
"The stability is very nice. We currently manage 50 million events daily."
"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."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"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."
"The user interface is one weakness. Sometimes, our data isn't as accessible as we'd like. It takes a lot of work to retrieve the data and the index."
"The repository isn't working very well. It's not user friendly."
"They need to have a proper portal to do everything because, at this moment, Kafka is lagging in this regard."
"Managing Apache Kafka can be a challenge, but there are solutions. I used the newest release, as it seems they have removed Zookeeper, which should make it easier. Confluent provides a fully managed Kafka platform, in which the cluster does not need to be managed."
"Lacks elasticity and the ability to scale down."
"Maintaining and configuring Apache Kafka can be challenging, especially when you want to fine-tune its behavior."
"Some vendors don't offer extra features for monitoring."
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 76 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 "Great access to multiple devices, with stability, at an affordable price". Amazon MQ is most compared with Amazon SQS, VMware RabbitMQ, IBM MQ, Red Hat AMQ and EMQX, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and IBM Event Streams. 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.
