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.

We used SQS for the Kapolei system to ensure that certain tasks were executed precisely once. The first-in, first-out (FIFO) capability was a great feature for us. Additionally, its redundancy out of the box meant we didn't have to worry about missing messages. It provided peace of mind and automatically instilled trust, relieving us of any concerns.

When you have millions of messages, it can get quite tender. Initially, Amazon SQS's maximum payload size wasn't sufficient for our needs. However, we found a workaround by splitting the payload into smaller chunks and only providing the URL within the SQL structure.

I have been using Amazon SQS for five years.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable, so we didn't need to care about it. We encountered no glitches or bugs.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

We were utilizing business support, which is relatively costly compared to other vendors. However, each time we reached out, the service was quite satisfactory.

Positive

The solution is easy to deploy and to configure. The implementation, including our application side, takes less than four hours. It was really quick.

The installation was handled by one person. That one person spent four hours working on it. We had prior knowledge of SQS. So, it was about trusting the installation and configuration process rather than figuring out how the system releases.

I rate the initial setup a ten out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

The solution has a monthly subscription, which costs around 22 dollars.

One person is enough for the solution's maintenance.

We don't have to maintain our tooling system, which was quite flaky. We had problems with high availability, and when we covered the below balance of the Reddit cluster, we sometimes encountered cases where the job was executed twice.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The product has excellent documentation for its services. It provides information on how to use it and its current availability. Users can refer to the documentation to understand its features and build their services accordingly.

The solution is easy to set up. You don't have to worry about scaling, etc. If the number of licenses increases, you don't have to worry about it. The Amazon SQS will take care of it. If you're doing it alone, you must take care of everything.

Support could be improved.

I have been using Amazon SQS for 3 to 4 years.

The solution is working fine. Whenever there is some issue around it, we look into it.  Sometimes, there are issues with its important sensors. Also, there are issues with the data center.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight or nine out of ten.

There are three or four users, but multiple instances are connected this way between different applications.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten.

Customer support is very bad. There's no tech support from the AWS side. If you want it, you must pay a lot of money, which is 2,000 dollars. They have a lot of customers. They have an open application and use a support team. If you're willing to pay that much, something significant is happening with your application. There's no direct connection if a small customer wants to get some information from AWS.

Negative

I have been using Amazon SQS for three to four years.

The initial setup is easy. It depends on the time limit for setting up the queues, but whatever standard time is defined should be sufficient.

The solution costs 200 dollars. We don't manage it if we don't use any queues.

Initially, we didn't have any code. Our lead engineers had the most knowledge about our system. We decided to pursue a customized design due to cost concerns. We soon realized that we could not focus on our product because we were constantly distracted by tasks such as deployments and managing scalability. That's why we decided to transition to SQS fully. SQS provides scalability and fixes related issues. Whenever we require a set of messages, we need to set them up in our system, and SQS takes care of the rest. The keys are functioning perfectly fine for now.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We have recently started using Amazon SQS and we are in the R&D phase. We want to see how resilient the solution is. We use Amazon SQS for integration purposes between our different applications.

The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface.

I have been using Amazon SQS for approximately 

Amazon SQS is stable from the usage that we have had so far.

The scalability of the solution is good. We can scale it to different regions and deploy it within Amazon AWS.

I have not used the support from Amazon SQS.

We previously were using ActiveMQ and we had to manage it manually on our on-premise server.  We have seen that a lot of times the messaging queuing service stopped responding or we had to restart the server or the services themselves on the server. This is the reason we are switching to Amazon SQS.

Amazon SQS is well integrated with Amazon AWS which is helpful if it is needed to be scaled. ActiveMQ is open-source and free to use but it is not resilient or dependable. It stops working at times and you have to manage the server yourself. Amazon SQS is serverless, you don't have to manage the server, you only have to manage the permissions.

The initial setup of Amazon SQS is in the middle range of difficulty. You need to learn Amazon AWS and know how to navigate, create resources, and structures, and provide rules.

The pricing of Amazon SQS is reasonable. The first million requests are free every month, and after, it's cost 40 cents for every million requests. There are not any additional fees.

This is a free-to-use solution for somebody who wants to do 1 million requests, and this is sufficient for any application at a small organization. It's cost-effective, reliable, and easily scalable.

I rate Amazon SQS an eight out of ten.

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.

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.

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.