We performed a comparison between Apache Kafka and Aurea CX Messenger 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."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."
"Deployment is speedy."
"It eases our current data flow and framework."
"Good horizontal scaling and design."
"The ability to partition data on Kafka is valuable."
"It is a stable solution...A lot of my experience indicates that Apache Kafka is scalable."
"Kafka can process messages in real-time, making it useful for applications that require near-instantaneous processing."
"valuable features relate to microservices architecture and working on KStream and KSQL DB as a microservices event bus."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"Something that could be improved is having an interface to monitor the consuming rate."
"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."
"There is a lot of information available for the solution and it can be overwhelming to sort through."
"Prioritization of messages in Apache Kafka could improve."
"The repository isn't working very well. It's not user friendly."
"In the next release, I would like for there to be some authorization and HTL security."
"Kafka requires non-trivial expertise with DevOps to deploy in production at scale. The organization needs to understand ZooKeeper and Kafka and should consider using additional tools, such as MirrorMaker, so that the organization can survive an availability zone or a region going down."
"Apache Kafka can improve by providing a UI for monitoring. There are third-party tools that can do it, but it would be nice if it was already embedded within Apache Kafka."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 78 reviews while Aurea CX Messenger is ranked 10th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 7 reviews. Apache Kafka is rated 8.0, while Aurea CX Messenger is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Aurea CX Messenger writes "Lightweight and efficient solution". Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and PubSub+ Event Broker, whereas Aurea CX Messenger is most compared with TIBCO Enterprise Message Service, Mule ESB and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator. See our Apache Kafka vs. Aurea CX Messenger 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.
