We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Schedule a 30-minute demo or reference call with a real user from the PeerSpot community. Available only to members that are in a buying process for this product and have contributed a review that's then published.

Red Hat AMQ OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Red Hat AMQ is #7 ranked solution in top Message Queue Software. IT Central Station users give Red Hat AMQ an average rating of 10 out of 10. Red Hat AMQ is most commonly compared to Apache Kafka:Red Hat AMQ vs Apache Kafka. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 31% of all views.
What is Red Hat AMQ?

To respond to business demands quickly and efficiently, you need a way to integrate the applications and data spread across your enterprise. Red Hat JBoss A-MQ—based on the Apache ActiveMQ open source project—is a flexible, high-performance messaging platform that delivers information reliably, enabling real-time integration and connecting the Internet of Things (IoT).

Red Hat AMQ was previously known as Red Hat JBoss A-MQ, Red Hat JBoss AMQ.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Message Queue (MQ) Software Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

Red Hat AMQ Customers

E*TRADE, CERN, CenturyLink, AECOM, Sabre Holdings

Red Hat AMQ Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Red Hat AMQ pricing:
  • "There is a subscription needed for this solution and there are support plans available."

Red Hat AMQ Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Roland Haeusler
DevOps Solution Architect at Helvetia Versicherungen
Real User
Top 20
The operator-based automation saves a lot of time and effort

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day."
  • "There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly."

What is our primary use case?

Our main use cases are data synchronization between systems, real-time data synchronization, and event-driven microservices.

It is important to us that Red Hat Integration includes transformation, routing, connectors, and a distribution of Apache Kafka, all built to run on Kubernetes. This is one of the core use cases that we are implementing.

We have a hybrid environment, where we have on-premise and cloud technologies in our company as well as synchronous and asynchronous integration needs. This is a key component why we choose the technologies that we choose. For us, it is a very valid use case to be operating in this area. 

How has it helped my organization?

The event-driven architecture enables us to decouple our services from each other and empower our developers to do their own integration. The decoupling allows for a better user experience, more stable systems, and faster applications. It allows us to isolate the back-end systems and keep them safe.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day.

What needs improvement?

There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using it in production for two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is good, but it is not excellent. Every now and then, we have had minor glitches. However, on an operating level, we have had no service downtimes since we went into production, which is excellent.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is good. It has a very flexible design and works very well.

There are between 100 and 500 technical users, which means about 100 to 500 projects are using it.

We have been steadily increasing usage and continuing adoption within the company.

How are customer service and support?

The support is excellent and very fast for the Red Hat AMQ Streams solution. I would rate it a 10 out of 10.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were previously using a different asynchronous integration technology, not Kafka, which was IBM MQ. The reason that we switched was that we needed the new technology. Since we were running on an open-shift Kubernetes infrastructure and already Red Hat customers, AMQ Streams was the best fit for our requirements.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. We were using most of the default configurations with the security enabled.

The actual deployment of the AMQ Streams infrastructure was done within a week. We then added some self-service capabilities around it on our own, and that took half a year to complete.

What about the implementation team?

We deployed it with some help from Red Hat support. Our experience with Red Hat support during the deployment was very good.

What was our ROI?

We are providing business value by providing modern applications.

AMQ Streams has enabled us to deliver new services faster. We went from days to hours.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We evaluated mainly Confluent and a SaaS provider called Aiven. We opted for AMQ Streams because it has a very good technological, partner-wise fit. We decided against the SaaS solution at the time because it was unclear if the business model of the SaaS provider was sustainable.

The Red Hat AMQ Streams solution is the best that I know of on the market for self-operated systems, not SaaS solutions.

We are not using a Red Hat product for Change Data Capture (CDC). We are using a different product. We have made an assessment of the Red Hat technology for CDC, and it was not suitable for our needs. It was not good enough because we are running on an IBM database.

The self-service aspect is very important for us. This is one of the cornerstones of our strategy. However, we are not using Red Hat Cloud Suite for our self-services. We built it ourselves.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend trying it out. It is quite easy to set up. It takes a bit of knowledge of the Kubernetes stack, but it is something that can easily be tried out. Also, there is an open-source upstream, which is also very helpful.

Change Data Capture technology is very important for us because this technology allows us to quickly add streams of data from our databases for processing in our streaming hubs. As one of our main use cases is data synchronization between systems, Change Data Capture is one of the technologies that we use to affect that.

We use Change Data Capture technology to access data from legacy systems. We use CDC to access data from legacy systems and provide it within Kafka topics.

We are quite happy with this solution. I think it is the best out there. I would give it a nine out of 10, because I don't know if it is the best financially.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
MichaelSukachev
Enterprise Architect at Teranet, INC.
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Scales well and is very stable, with great technical support on offer

Pros and Cons

  • "This combination of two products, Apache Kafka and ActiveMQ, offers two ways of dealing with messaging. It's wonderful due to the fact that sometimes it's much preferable to use Kafka and sometimes it's Active MQ. We can use both of them in our arsenal."
  • "AMQ is not offered as a separate offering anymore. It comes only as a part of the Red Hat Integration package. Therefore, if you would like to purchase a specific product, you can't do that."

What is our primary use case?

Specifically, the system performs long-running queries. We needed to find a mechanism for messaging, and that was AMQ. Underneath all of this technology, it's a combination of Apache Kafka and ActiveMQ, which are two different mechanisms of messaging that could be used for different use cases whenever it's needed.

AMQ is a combination of two products, Apache Kafka and ActiveMQ, and designed into a new product that basically gives users the opportunity to work with both of them on one product.

What is most valuable?

This combination of two products, Apache Kafka and ActiveMQ, offers two ways of dealing with messaging. It's wonderful due to the fact that sometimes it's much preferable to use Kafka and sometimes it's Active MQ. We can use both of them in our arsenal.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The solution is designed to scale well.

We've found the stability to be very good.

Technical support has been excellent overall.

What needs improvement?

AMQ is not offered as a separate offering anymore. It comes only as a part of the Red Hat Integration package. Therefore, if you would like to purchase a specific product, you can't do that. You need to go with a larger package, which is sometimes not desirable. In our case, we actually upgraded this to the bigger package from Red Hat, so this works in our favor.

For how long have I used the solution?

We started using it with one of our projects. That's the only project we've used it on. Officially, we purchased it last summer. It would be a year at this point.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is very reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It has very good scalability, the products underneath are scalable by themselves, they're inherently scalable. Each instance is on top of the containers, which gives additional scalability as well.

How are customer service and technical support?

So far technical support has been great. We were doing the setup of MQ and I would say we're pretty heavy users of Red Hat technologies in general. Their technical support is pretty responsive and the account management is great as well. I'm pretty impressed. We're quite satisfied.

How was the initial setup?

From a setup perspective, it was pretty straightforward. It was not too complex. We're using the installation on top of the OCP containers, OpenShift containers, and together with support from Red Hat, it was pretty simple.

I wasn't too involved in the actual deployment and therefore can't speak to how long it took to implement. However, my understanding is that it is pretty quick to set up. 

After the initial setup, we haven't needed any maintenance. I can't say how much it might require. The one thing that I do know, is that Red Hat is providing the templates of the containers. There is a way of upgrading with the upgrade for AMQ and other products. They provide samples. If along the way, you need to adjust the solution, it's possible to do so.

What about the implementation team?

We did have assistance from Red Hat directly. However, we didn't use any outside integrators or consultants. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

For AMQ itself, when we purchased it last year, it was last year that it was offered as a separate product. Right now, technically, what we bought is not available anymore. It's not relevant anymore. Therefore, the price that we paid for our subscription is not relevant to a person looking to purchase tomorrow. 

I can't recall how much we paid. However, we choose the Red Hat Integration package, the subscription, due to its affordability and the fact that it offers the functionality we require. For a commercial product, it is quite competitive.

What other advice do I have?

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with Red Hat.

We are using one of the most recent versions, as in addition, we purchased from Red Hat what's called Red Hat Integration, which includes the licenses for AMQ's latest version. I assume it would be the latest version.

Since the solution is no longer separated out, I would advise a company considering the solution to look into the whole package. The package consists of the other products as well, that might not be of use, or will not be needed. A company will need to be aware of this part. 

I'd also advise companies to be aware of how resources are allocated. An organization must understand how resources are allocated, from the technical point of view. They need to understand what is covered under the subscription. Technical support can help discuss it with them if they have questions. 

Overall, I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Apache, VMware and others in Message Queue (MQ) Software. Updated: November 2021.
554,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
RM
Director, CTO, Co-Founder at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
East to configure, lightweight on resource, simple to manage

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
  • "There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."

What is our primary use case?

We are in the early stages of evaluating Red Hat AMQ for an OpenShift container platform because it can provide a very good Kubernetes platform using asynchronous data communication.

What is most valuable?

The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched.

What needs improvement?

There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for approximately one and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have found the solution to be reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is highly scalable. This is the main reason why we are using this solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

The support technical documentation is very good.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very easy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

There is a subscription needed for this solution and there are support plans available.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have evaluated Kafka. Red Head AMQ solves the producer-consumer problems and Kafka is used for streaming mainly.

What other advice do I have?

This solution is very mature and can be very useful depending on the use case. For what we use it for, it has worked perfectly. For some other use cases, this solution might not be the best to use. Most of my clients are using other Red Hat solutions combined with this one, such as Ansible and 3scale.

I rate Red Hat AMQ a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Integrator
Flag as inappropriate