Amazon SQS Reviews

We use it for event-driven messaging and workflows.

We use SNS as the publisher, and our procurement service subscribes to those events using SQS.

In the past, we relied on time-based or batch-based processes to send data between services on-premises. With SQS, we can trigger actions based on real-time changes in business processes, improving reliability.

Moreover, SQS can grow with our needs.

SQS message delay feature and redundant retention policies helped us to avoid replaying events due to errors and ensure our messages are processed reliably.

We use CloudWatch for monitoring.

It's easy to implement and cost-effective.

The visibility timeout feature is very nice. We use the visibility timeout in our internal processes to ensure that if a message fails to process, it becomes available for other consumers after a set period.

The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases.

I have been using it for five to six years now. We (my company) use SQS quite extensively, and it has been quite a good service till now.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable product. We can handle 10,000 events easily. 

We have a lot of end users using it in my company. We have around 2,000 end users using it. We have multiple locations. 

I have used RabbitMQ. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's a simple checkbox-kinda process. 

It is not difficult to maintain it. It is very easy. Overall, it is a very straightforward solution. 

It does a very good job. The cost was the main issue for us.

It's quite expensive. 

It's a great solution. I would recommend using it. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I've used it, and it seems to be a solid solution.

Amazon SQS is basically a queue service. Each message is treated as an event and added to a container. When a message needs to be processed, a trigger can be set.

One of the useful features is the ability to schedule a call after a certain number of messages accumulate in the container. For example, if there are ten messages in the container, you can perform a specific action.

Recently, I encountered an issue where I couldn't send a message to multiple recipients. If two subscribers are subscribed to the same channel, the message can only be sent to either one of them, not both. I believe this is an area that needs improvement.

So, I cannot send a message to multiple people simultaneously. It can only be sent to one recipient.

I've been using Amazon SQS for about six months.

Amazon SQS is not very stable. 

It does not that stable because you can't deliver the same message to two people; how can you add that feature on the AWS. So we have the option to add multiple subscribers to the same message, but it's not delivering this message to all the people at the same instant.

Amazon SQS is a scalable product. There are 30 people using Amazon SQS in our company.

Amazon SQS was easy to set up.

If you only have one job to run, I would recommend using it. However, if you need to handle multiple jobs, I would not recommend it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a five out of ten. Since it doesn't support sending the same message to multiple subscribers, it lacks usefulness in certain cases.

Generally, we use it for asynchronous communication. We have actively utilized it for the past three years. Basically, we use it to exchange events and messages when we need communication and integration in our architecture.

Amazon SQS has provided us with a better experience, better performance, and better communication in our scenario. It is a valuable tool for our needs.

There are many valuable features, such as resuming messages, high performance, first-in-first-out (FIFO) capability, message grouping, and integration with AWS Key Management Service (KMS). With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us.

There is room for improvement in the performance system.  Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us. 

Recently, we had a necessity for encryption and a stronger security strategy. We faced difficulties in providing this with scalability. So, I'm not sure about the specific feature. There are good and new features related to security, secret chaining, and threat security that can be improved in the future for our clients and close customers.

I have been using Amazon SQS for more than three years. I use the latest version. 

It's very stable.

Amazon SQS is a scalable solution. We have specific needs for this product currently. Generally, we are working with big data size, and Amazon SQS provides stability and the necessary features for our data reports.

So, in the future, we will continue using it in our factory and as part of our in-house solution.

The technical support is very good. We have an enterprise support model, so when we raise a ticket, we receive feedback within one hour and thirty minutes.

It is worth the investment. Generally, it's more expensive. For example, in the cloud, the initial setup may be more expensive in size and investment, but the returns are better for us. 

But, it depends on the specific case, you know, like starting small and configuring the services according to your needs. It's better for us in the cloud but varies depending on the situation.

The pricing model is pay-as-you-use. It depends on your usage and configuration. But generally, it's better. The cost benefits are better for us.

I would definitely recommend using the solution. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It's a streaming application. For example, it is basically an autonomous vehicle solution for the case management side. It gives alerts and we have devices that will connect to IoT and the other service processes to provide data and then put it in a queue. 

The solution is simple to use. I like it. I don't need to do too many things. However, it is basically dependent on the vendor configuration.

It can really integrate with any other telemetry angle. It can integrate with CloudWatch and CloudWatch is configured with AWS. 

I am able to find out what's going on very easily.

The initial setup was easy.

Their telemetry could be better. Whene we see something going wrong, we need to find out the telemetry separately. That's fine if it's just one case, however, if we have 100 services and have many queues to manage and you need to understand what's going on in your system, there are not enough tools that are available. We have to move all data and then go through a service vendor. It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues. We need to have more power to observe all that's happening. We need to rely on plugins to assist. 

The solution needs to be more of an all-in-one solution.

I've used the solution for the last three years. 

While the solution is stable, based on my long stint in IT my experience is that anything can be improved.

The solution can scale. However, you need to find your requirements to see what is being consumed or reduced to see if there are limitations you can address via configuration. 

We have 300 people using the solution. We use it daily. It is integrated with part of our overall solution.

The support hasn't been ideal. It could be better. They need better response times. Also, sometimes we deal with people who are not extremely knowledgeable. However, it is case by case. They are not consistent. There are other cloud providers that ultimately offer better services. 

Neutral

The solution is easy to implement. I'd rate it a four out of five in terms of the ease of setup. 

The setup was handled in-house. We didn't need any outside support. We have our own team that can handle it. 

A separate team handles licensing. I can't speak to any pricing. However, my understanding is that the solution is moderately priced. It's rather competitive. 

We are a customer and an end-user. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use Amazon SQS for notification services.

It allows for easier management of notifications as it serves as a listener with various protocols like HTTPS.

Amazon SQS provides faster search through indexing via OpenSearch.

Packages sometimes have delays in dropping, indicating reliability issues.

I have been using it whenever a notification service was needed, which is approximately six and a half years.

There are occasional reliability issues where packages are delayed.

There is a need for better congestion tools, and Kafka is suggested as an alternative in the market today.

I have never contacted their support team.

Neutral

I was a developer, so we never contacted the support team directly.

I don't know about pricing.

Kafka is used a lot in the market today for notification services.

AWS subscription includes the deployment of the tool along with other services, making it comprehensive under one device.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use the service in cloud-native event-driven integrations.

The service needs more user-friendly discoverability for self-service scenarios.

The product is stable.

I would rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten.

The product's setup is simple. We can speed up the deployment and complete it in a few minutes if we have an AWS contract. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. If you are using the AWS platform, then you will find a lot of use cases for the solution.

This is an event-driven solution so messages go through the API gateway onto the queue and are then processed from there. We are customers of Amazon.

The biggest improvement we've seen from SQS is that our backing system is not under strain anymore and messages don't get lost because the queue is now very resilient. If our backing process goes down, the messages remain in the queue. 

There are several valuable features that SQS offers including the standard queue, the AWS interface and the quality documentation provided by AWS. The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features. The visibility of the messages is great and the 256 kilobytes payload is also good. SQS improves the scalability and resilience of the solution. It's also very simple and very straightforward.

If you require event-driven development, there might be advanced queuing requirements that SQS can't offer. I don't think it supports transactions although I'm no expert around that. The biggest issue is likely to be cost estimations because you might get a huge bill if you're not careful.

I've been using this solution for a year. 

The documentation is very good so we've never had to reach out to the SQS technical support team. There's a very rich source of information around SQS.

We initially used Rabbit MQ. SQS is our first attempt at event-driven, asynchronous development. We chose to migrate our infrastructure to AWS and took on the native queuing solution that AWS supplies. It was an opportunity for us and the learning curve to get going with SQS is very low. 

Another reason we went with SQS is the zero maintenance from our point of view. The service is hosted by AWS and doesn't require IT support. 

The initial setup was reasonably straightforward. We deployed in-house and used one engineer for the process. SQS is a managed service by AWS so they carry out the maintenance. Once the solution is running, it gets used by clients who interact with the APIs. In terms of developers we have five users but the system that uses it has billions of users with accounts that get managed through SQS. To date, we've implemented it in two of our in-house projects and there will likely be more. 

Part of the reason we went for SQS is that it's a pay-as-you-use licensing model. 
In addition, they offer a significant amount of free monthly transactions before you start paying. It's possible that down the line SQS will become too expensive and we may need to look for an alternative. 

I would definitely suggest carrying out cost estimations prior to purchase because if you need it for a very high number of requests per month, the costs might be significantly higher and not worth it. In that event, it may be worth looking at ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ, where you can better control licensing costs. That said, this is a very good solution for us.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

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.