ActiveMQ vs Red Hat AMQ comparison

Apache and Red Hat are both solutions in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category. Apache is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.7, while Red Hat is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.3. Apache holds a 31.2% mindshare in MQ, compared to Red Hat’s 12.3% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Apache users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 90% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

ActiveMQ

Read 26 ActiveMQ reviews

8,393 Views
4,952 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Red Hat AMQ

Read 9 Red Hat AMQ reviews

2,469 Views
1,717 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

ActiveMQ

Red Hat AMQ

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Red Hat AMQ 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.

To learn more, read our detailed ActiveMQ vs. Red Hat AMQ Report (Updated: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ vs. Red Hat AMQ

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 824,053 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

ActiveMQ

Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software

2nd

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

5.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Red Hat AMQ

Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software

8th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of ActiveMQ is 31.2%, up from 24.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat AMQ is 12.3%, up from 11.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Message Queue (MQ) Software

Featured Reviews

Eyob Alemu

Technical Director at NIDP

Efficient data flow management with high performance and occasional stability improvements

For high traffic volumes where management time on ActiveMQ is minimal and where the rate of flow from the provider is slower than from the consumer, ActiveMQ offers the highest performance based on our experience. It has been efficient for data flow control between two endpoints, despite occasional unexpected glitches. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Read full review

Sther Martins

Java Developer at SCCON

An easy-to-learn solution that can be used with microservices

We have done around 20 projects in Red Hat AMQ. I have two projects using Red Hat AMQ, and I can share how its scalability has impacted them. In one project, we have a solution for authentication and authorization using SSO. We need to integrate with other systems in two ways. We use Red Hat AMQ for social data, sending messages to other queues, and integrating with business. We have two databases with the same information. The solution is good because it helps us solve problems with messaging. For instance, when messaging doesn't change, we still check the cloud and verify the information. In another project, we have a large banking solution for the Amazon region using Red Hat AMQ for financial transactions. In this solution, business messages are sent, and another system processes them.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"ActiveMQ is very lightweight and quick."

"It’s a JMS broker, so the fact that it can allow for asynchronous communication is valuable."

"The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."

"Most people or many people recommended using ActiveMQ on small and medium-scale applications."

"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."

"The ability to store the failed events for some time is valuable."

More ActiveMQ pros

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."

"AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination."

"The most valuable feature for us is the operator-based automation that is provided by Streams for infrastructure as well as user and topic management. This saves a lot of time and effort on our part to provide infrastructure. For example, the deployment of infrastructure is reduced from approximately a week to a day."

"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."

"This product is well adopted on the OpenShift platform. For organizations like ours that use OpenShift for many of our products, this is a good feature."

"Reliability is the main criterion for selecting this tool for one of the busiest airports in Mumbai."

"Red Hat AMQ's best feature is its reliability."

More Red Hat AMQ pros

Cons

"Needs to focus on a certain facet and be good at it, instead of handling support for most of the available message brokers."

"This solution could improve by providing better documentation."

"The tool needs to improve its installation part which is lengthy. The product is already working on that aspect so that the complete installation gets completed within a month."

"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."

"From the TPS point of view, it's like 100,000 transactions that need to be admitted from different devices and also from the different minor small systems. Those are best fit for Kafka. We have used it on the customer side, and we thought of giving a try to ActiveMQ, but we have to do a lot of performance tests and approval is required before we can use it for this scale."

"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."

"One potential area would be the complexity of the initial setup."

"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."

More ActiveMQ cons

"There are some aspects of the monitoring that could be improved on. There is a tool that is somewhat connected to Kafka called Service Registry. This is a product by Red Hat that I would like to see integrated more tightly."

"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."

"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."

"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."

"The challenge is the multiple components it has. This brings a higher complexity compared to IBM MQ, which is a single complete unit."

"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."

"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."

"The product needs to improve its documentation and training."

More Red Hat AMQ cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's pricing is reasonable and competitive compared to other solutions."

"The solution is less expensive than its competitors."

"ActiveMQ is open source, so it is free to use."

"We are using the open-source version, so we have not looked at any pricing."

"We use the open-source version."

"I use open source with standard Apache licensing."

"I think the software is free."

"It’s open source, ergo free."

More ActiveMQ pricing and cost advice

"The solution is open-source."

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive."

"Red Hat AMQ's pricing could be improved."

"There is a subscription needed for this solution and there are support plans available."

"This is a very cost-effective solution and the pricing is much better than competitors."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

34%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

27%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

10%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about ActiveMQ?

For reliable messaging, the most valuable feature of ActiveMQ for us is ensuring prompt message delivery.

See all answers

What needs improvement with ActiveMQ?

We need to address the non-deterministic load issues. Sometimes, ActiveMQ either restarts automatically or goes into ActiveMQ mode, causing interruptions. We need to enhance stability and improve t...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for ActiveMQ?

We have a digital ID platform that uses various services running on Kafka. There are two main endpoints where services interact with external services. These include an automatic biometric service ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Red Hat AMQ?

AMQ is highly scalable and performs well. It can process a large volume of messages in one second. AMQ and OpenShift are a good combination.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat AMQ?

The product needs to improve its documentation and training.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Red Hat AMQ?

We just started working with Red Hat AMQ. We selected it as the ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) platform for a new airport project. I manage the entire Master System Integration (MSI) project for one ...

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM MQ vs ActiveMQ

Compared 45% of the time

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform vs ActiveMQ

Compared 18% of the time

Amazon SQS vs ActiveMQ

Compared 6% of the time

PubSub+ Platform vs ActiveMQ

Compared 5% of the time

Redis vs ActiveMQ

Compared 4% of the time

More ActiveMQ Competitors

Apache Kafka vs Red Hat AMQ

Compared 28% of the time

IBM MQ vs Red Hat AMQ

Compared 19% of the time

VMware Tanzu Data Solutions vs Red Hat AMQ

Compared 10% of the time

IBM Event Streams vs Red Hat AMQ

Compared 6% of the time

Amazon MQ vs Red Hat AMQ

Compared 4% of the time

More Red Hat AMQ Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ

December 2024

Download ActiveMQ product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat AMQ

December 2024

Download Red Hat AMQ product report

Also Known As

AMQ

Red Hat JBoss A-MQ, Red Hat JBoss AMQ

Learn More

Apache

Red Hat

Overview

Apache ActiveMQ is the most popular and powerful open source messaging and Integration Patterns server.

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License

To respond to business demands quickly and efficiently, you need a way to integrate the applications and data spread across your enterprise. Red Hat JBoss A-MQ—based on the Apache ActiveMQ open source project—is a flexible, high-performance messaging platform that delivers information reliably, enabling real-time integration and connecting the Internet of Things (IoT).

Sample Customers

University of Washington, Daugherty Systems, CSC, STG Technologies, Inc.

E*TRADE, CERN, CenturyLink, AECOM, Sabre Holdings

Buyer's Guide

ActiveMQ vs. Red Hat AMQ

December 2024

Free Report: ActiveMQ vs. Red Hat AMQ

Find out what your peers are saying about ActiveMQ vs. Red Hat AMQ and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our ActiveMQ vs. Red Hat AMQ 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.