Amazon SQS Reviews

As an IT company, we develop various solutions and products for our clients. This particular item is utilized as a component of a comprehensive solution for specific customer needs across various industries.

Amazon SQS is not a complex solution, we mainly use it for its primary purpose. It's an integral part of our application's workflow.

I appreciate that Amazon SQS is fully integrated with Amazon and can be accessed through normal functions or serverless functions, making it very user-friendly. Additionally, the features are comparable to those of other solutions.

As a company that uses IBM solutions, it's difficult to compare Amazon SQS to other solutions. We have been using IBM solutions for a long time and they are very mature in integration and queuing. In my role as an integration manager, I can say that Amazon SQS is designed primarily for use within the Amazon ecosystem and does not have the same level of functionality as IBM MQ or other similar products. It has limited connectivity options and does not easily integrate with legacy systems.

I have been using Amazon SQS for approximately two years.

Amazon SQS is stable.

I rate the stability of Amazon SQS a nine out of ten.

Amazon SQS is scalable. It is not suitable for many use cases. It is suitable for cloud applications but it's not suitable for on-premises or hybrid.

I rate the scalability of Amazon SQS a seven out of ten.

The components are simple in Amazon SQS. The components are not complex to need support. I did not use the support.

I rate Amazon SQS a six out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is for collecting event data for analytic purposes.

In our case, when a user selects a function in our app, the information is collected. Analytics is performed on the data to determine the functionalities that clients use the most. 

Additionally, the data can tell us the most popular service demands such that resources can be assigned accordingly.

Documentation of this solution can be improved. Sometimes, the images in the document are from older versions.
 

I have been using this solution for three years.

We have never had a problem with the stability of the solution.

The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective.

The profile management of this solution is difficult to set up. 

However, after the initial setup, it is easy to deploy, maintain, and test.

The security of a cloud solution is very important and attention must be given to profile management, key generation, and key protection.

SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features.

There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received.

SQS is very stable.

Amazon's technical support could be more responsive.

Neutral

SQS's pricing is very good - I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would give SQS a rating of nine out of ten.

In the past, we used Amazon SQS to synchronize distribution systems, particularly for logistics and managing customer orders. It served as a framework for asynchronous connection between different parts of our application, handling around ninety thousand messages per hour with multiple workers processing them. Currently, we use it to integrate with the logistic departments of the automotive industry, suppliers, and carmakers.

Amazon SQS provides an asynchronous glue that is essential for our system. It helps us scale efficiently and manage the workflow with either high parallelization or queued processing. The maturity and stability of the service contribute significantly to our integration projects.

The most valuable features of Amazon SQS are its scalability, availability, and maturity as an AWS service. It works consistently and is economical under a standard non-FIFO model. The dead letter queue feature is also advantageous, allowing for enhanced resilience and retry policies.

There is room for improvement in the pricing, especially for the FIFO model. Although it's a great feature, it is currently more expensive. A better pricing policy with scaled pricing for higher volumes would be beneficial. 

Additionally, SQS could enhance compatibility with enterprise software by integrating built-in connectors, similar to those available for Kafka.

I have used Amazon SQS since 2010.

The stability is excellent. We have never faced any corrupted messages or downtime attributed to AWS. It is a straightforward and simple service.

The scalability of Amazon SQS is one of its strengths. It can handle various message volumes and worker processing requirements efficiently. Its integration with other AWS services like EventBridge is a plus.

I have not contacted Amazon's support team for Amazon SQS in years. The primary responsibility for issues often lies within our application rather than the service itself. Quotas are generally not a problem, though AWS is more cautious with quotas due to the expanding user base.

Positive

In Eastern Europe, RabbitMQ and other MQ services were used. The transition to Amazon SQS was made easier by its similarities, making it a preferred choice.

The initial setup of Amazon SQS is straightforward and can be quickly managed from the console. Issues may arise related to message quotas, however, they are usually not significant.

The pricing is good, although improvements in FIFO pricing could be advantageous. Using standard queues is affordable, but a more progressive pricing strategy for greater volumes is advisable to prevent a drop-off in users.

People sometimes prefer Kafka in enterprise setups due to its compatibility features. However, Amazon SQS is more efficient for performance reasons.

I would recommend this product as it is a basic essential in event-driven architecture design. It is cost-effective, reliable, and straightforward when not using a FIFO queue, and there's always room for improvement.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.