We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, IBM, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software."It provides the best support services."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."
"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"JBoss is easy to use, and we have a good partner here in Tunisia to provide local support."
"There are some stability issues."
"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."
"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"The solution's stability needs improvement."
"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."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"One potential area would be the complexity of the initial setup."
"JBoss could add more automation."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is ranked 12th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 1 review. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS 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 Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS writes "It's scalable and easy to use, and we have local support here in Tunisia". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware RabbitMQ and Apache Kafka, whereas Red Hat JBoss A-MQ for xPaaS is most compared with IBM MQ and Apache Kafka.
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.
