The performance of ActiveMQ meets our needs adequately. We selected it as our messaging solution because we believed it was the best fit for our requirements, and we haven't encountered significant performance issues directly related to ActiveMQ itself. The challenges we faced were more related to issues like hosting environments, such as OpenShift, and hardware limitations. Overall, I would rate ActiveMQ as an eight out of ten.
Senior Software Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
2023-08-30T12:09:51Z
Aug 30, 2023
Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. I'd advise if your requirement is on a smaller scale, then go for it. If it's a big scale with more events and higher throughput, consider Apache Kafka instead.
I would rate the product a nine out of ten. You need to scale the application to interact with other automation and robotic systems. Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications.
I give the solution a six out of ten. Our customers would use the solution in any model. We have to test with the on-premise deployments and run on an EC2 cloud. We have about ten users in our organization. We do not require any people for deployment or maintenance. Whenever we need support we get it from the online community. I do not recommend ActiveMQ over Apache Kafka partly because I don't know who provides support for the solution. When our clients are looking for AMQ protocol support specifically ActiveMQ is our recommendation.
Senior Software Developer at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
2022-11-01T18:43:00Z
Nov 1, 2022
If you are working with a small application, and you can manage losing data, or at some point, losing connection, the solution is fine. Overall, I would rate ActiveMQ a five out of ten.
It depends on the use case, which is if you want to go for scaling and horizontal scaling, and the better, two-way scaling is actually required for that. ActiveMQ is very usable in that way, and it has the option of network process raising, which is a really good ActiveMQ feature. As well as the message toll replication. These are some of the features that we can find in IBM MQ, but we can also find them in ActiveMQ. It depends on the use case. This is a good solution. It is low cost, high performance, and scalability. ActiveMQ is a good solution. Because of these features, I would like to see added, such as data sharing and scalability, I would rate ActiveMQ an eight out of ten.
I would give this solution 10 out of 10. It's a very easy-to-use product. Documentation is sufficient, and anyone with a bit of knowledge about technology, like Java, can quickly set it up and it could be up and running in minutes.
I have also had experience with IBM MQ for the last 30 years. I am comparing between different products and messaging scenario expertise. I work in consultancies with many clients who have many different versions. All messaging whether it's ActiveMQ, Amazon MQ which is Active MQ, or it's IBM MQ, they are all very similar, they all have strengths and weaknesses. We have clients from small to large enterprises. I would recommend this solution but it depends on the requirements. For example, what kind of support does the vendor want? What kind of managed services do they want? It is important because you can run ActiveMQ on AWS to get a managed service. It always depends on what their clients are looking for. I'm impressed, I think that ActiveMQ is great. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
Apache ActiveMQ is the most popular and powerful open source messaging and Integration Patterns server.
Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License
The performance of ActiveMQ meets our needs adequately. We selected it as our messaging solution because we believed it was the best fit for our requirements, and we haven't encountered significant performance issues directly related to ActiveMQ itself. The challenges we faced were more related to issues like hosting environments, such as OpenShift, and hardware limitations. Overall, I would rate ActiveMQ as an eight out of ten.
Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. I'd advise if your requirement is on a smaller scale, then go for it. If it's a big scale with more events and higher throughput, consider Apache Kafka instead.
I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
I would rate the product a nine out of ten. You need to scale the application to interact with other automation and robotic systems. Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications.
I would rate the tool an eight out of ten.
I give the solution a six out of ten. Our customers would use the solution in any model. We have to test with the on-premise deployments and run on an EC2 cloud. We have about ten users in our organization. We do not require any people for deployment or maintenance. Whenever we need support we get it from the online community. I do not recommend ActiveMQ over Apache Kafka partly because I don't know who provides support for the solution. When our clients are looking for AMQ protocol support specifically ActiveMQ is our recommendation.
If you are working with a small application, and you can manage losing data, or at some point, losing connection, the solution is fine. Overall, I would rate ActiveMQ a five out of ten.
It depends on the use case, which is if you want to go for scaling and horizontal scaling, and the better, two-way scaling is actually required for that. ActiveMQ is very usable in that way, and it has the option of network process raising, which is a really good ActiveMQ feature. As well as the message toll replication. These are some of the features that we can find in IBM MQ, but we can also find them in ActiveMQ. It depends on the use case. This is a good solution. It is low cost, high performance, and scalability. ActiveMQ is a good solution. Because of these features, I would like to see added, such as data sharing and scalability, I would rate ActiveMQ an eight out of ten.
I would give this solution 10 out of 10. It's a very easy-to-use product. Documentation is sufficient, and anyone with a bit of knowledge about technology, like Java, can quickly set it up and it could be up and running in minutes.
I have also had experience with IBM MQ for the last 30 years. I am comparing between different products and messaging scenario expertise. I work in consultancies with many clients who have many different versions. All messaging whether it's ActiveMQ, Amazon MQ which is Active MQ, or it's IBM MQ, they are all very similar, they all have strengths and weaknesses. We have clients from small to large enterprises. I would recommend this solution but it depends on the requirements. For example, what kind of support does the vendor want? What kind of managed services do they want? It is important because you can run ActiveMQ on AWS to get a managed service. It always depends on what their clients are looking for. I'm impressed, I think that ActiveMQ is great. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.