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.
"There is a vibrant community, and it is one of the strongest points of this product. We always get answers to our problems. So, my experience with the community support has been good."
"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."
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."
"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."
"It provides the best support services."
"With Kafka, events and streaming are persistent, and multiple subscribers can consume the data. This is an advantage of Kafka compared to simple queue-based solutions."
"Apache Kafka is actually a distributed commit log. That is different than most messaging and queuing systems before it."
"I have seen a return on investment with this solution."
"The main advantage is increased reliability, particularly with regard to data and the speed with which messages are published to the other side."
"I like the performance and reliability of Kafka. I needed a data streaming buffer that could handle thousands of messages per second with at least one processing point for an analytics pipeline. Kafka fits this requirement very well."
"The processing power of Apache Kafka is good when you have requirements for high throughput and a large number of consumers."
"This is a system for email and other small devices. There has been a relay of transactions continuously over the last two years it has been in production."
"There are numerous possibilities that can be explored. While it may be challenging to fully comprehend the potential advantages, one key aspect is the ability to establish a proper sequence of events rather than simply dealing with a jumbled group of occurrences. These events possess their own timestamps, even if they were not initially provided with one, and are arranged in a chronological order that allows for a clear understanding of the progression of the events."
"Message Management: Better management of the messages. Perhaps persist them, or put in another queue with another life cycle."
"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."
"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."
"The clustering for sure needs improvement. When we were using it, the only thing available was an active/passive relationship that had to be maintained via shared file storage. That model includes a single point of failure in that storage medium."
"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."
"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."
"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."
"If the graphical user interface was easier for the Kafka administration it would be much better. Right now, you need to use the program with the command-line interface. If the graphical user interface was easier, it could be a better product."
"In Apache Kafka, it is currently difficult to create a consumer."
"One complexity that I faced with the tool stems from the fact that since it is not kind of a stand-alone application, it won't integrate with native cloud, like AWS or Azure."
"The graphical user environment is currently lacking."
"Kafka 2.0 has been released for over a month, and I wanted to try out the new features. However, the configuration is a little bit complicated: Kafka Broker, Kafka Manager, ZooKeeper Servers, etc."
"The GUI tools for monitoring and support are still very basic and not very rich. There is no help in determining a shard key for performance."
"The support on Apache Kafka could be improved."
"In the next release, I would like for there to be some authorization and HTL security."
ActiveMQ is ranked 4th 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.
