We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ 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.
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"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."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"It provides the best support services."
"For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"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."
"The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."
"The most valuable features of the solution revolve around areas like the latency part, where the tool offers very little latency and the sequencing part."
"Excellent speeds for publishing messages faster."
"It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all."
"Kafka allows you to handle huge amounts of data and classify it into different categories. If you have huge amounts of data, Kafka is a very good solution for data classification."
"Kafka's most valuable feature is its user-friendliness."
"One of the most valuable features I have found is Kafka Connect."
"Robust and delivers messages quickly."
"The open-source version is relatively straightforward to set up and only takes a few minutes."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"The UI. It's both a good thing and a bad thing. The UI is too simple. Sometimes you wanna see the messages coming to the queue, and you have to refresh the dashboard, the console of the product."
"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."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"I would like the tool to improve compliance and stability. We will encounter issues while using the central applications. In the solution's future releases, I want to control and set limitations for databases."
"It would be great if it is included as part of the solution, as Kafka is doing. Even though the use case of Kafka is different, If something like data extraction is possible, or if we can experiment with partition tolerance and other such things, that will be great."
"The solution's stability needs improvement."
"There are some stability issues."
"Kafka does not provide control over the message queue, so we do not know whether we are experiencing lost or duplicate messages."
"As an open-source project, Kafka is still fairly young and has not yet built out the stability and features that other open-source projects have acquired over the many years. If done correctly, Kafka can also take over the stream-processing space that technologies such as Apache Storm cover."
"The interface has room for improvement, and there is a steep learning curve for Hadoop integration. It was a struggle learning to send from Hadoop to Kafka. In future releases, I'd like to see improvements in ETL functionality and Hadoop integration."
"The management overhead is more compared to the messaging system. There are challenges here and there. Like for long usage, it requires restarts and nodes from time to time."
"The solution's initial setup process was complex."
"Maintaining and configuring Apache Kafka can be challenging, especially when you want to fine-tune its behavior."
"The repository isn't working very well. It's not user friendly."
"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."
ActiveMQ is ranked 3rd in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 78 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Apache Kafka 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 Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, Amazon SQS and Redis, whereas Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and Amazon MQ. See our ActiveMQ 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.
