Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon MQ vs Aurea CX Messenger comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Amazon MQ
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Aurea CX Messenger
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
9th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (12th), SOA Governance (3rd), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Amazon MQ is 3.2%, down from 5.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

David Onuh - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides you with a URL where you can either send or retrieve messages
For messaging, we use SQL queues, not MQ queues. When a request comes into our front-end application, we put this message into a queue. The right service picks up a particular message from the queue, performs the operation, and calls the next service. The next service taking that message can either perform services on the message or attach it to a new queue from multiple services. It's as if we have multiple services working hand-in-hand, but we use a queue system to either get or send messages. I only use Amazon MQ for one specific thing. I wouldn't say I've used it extensively to know what is more beneficial. We use the solution to pick out matrices from a particular queue, process the queue, and process the messages they push into something else. It was really fast. One of the good things I love about the solution is that you hardly get two services working on one message. When a subscriber to a queue consumes their message, it's in the queue at a particular moment. All the messages are only visible to the particular subscriber. Suppose ten services are trying to get a message from the queue. Out of the ten, if five pick the same messages, you will get duplicate transactions and weird errors. It does a very good job abstracting that for you, so you don't have to write the logic. Amazon MQ has done all that it was supposed to do. Most of the issues boil down to a skill or a pricing issue. Overall, I rate Amazon MQ ten out of ten.
Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Lightweight and efficient solution
It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance."
"Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution."
"Amazon MQ is a secure solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations."
"We have found Amazon MQ to provide scalability, robustness, and security."
"Amazon MQ is managed by AWS and is easy to use."
"Amazon MQ is important for being collaborative, allowing for centralized information."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
 

Cons

"The solution needs improvement in the back end and security."
"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"If Amazon provided a templating engine, it would be great."
"The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also."
"In community support, especially with distributed systems and integration, there is a need for better system organization."
"Amazon MQ isn't a cheap tool."
"Amazon MQ is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises. It's open-source software, which means it's cheaper than its competitors."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive."
"As a client or as an end user, I would say that Google Cloud Storage or Google Cloud are cheaper than Amazon MQ."
"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
"The pricing is not so high."
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Insurance Company
8%
Media Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Amazon MQ?
The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations.
What needs improvement with Amazon MQ?
The message queue requires an improvement in the message template MQ link. If Amazon provided a templating engine, it would be great.
What is your primary use case for Amazon MQ?
We are using Amazon MQ for our AI model. It's used for notifications and other services. We have an application for which Amazon MQ acts as a broker.
What do you like most about Aurea CX Messenger?
The Messenger Broker is a really good feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Aurea CX Messenger?
The pricing is not so high. I will rate it a seven out of ten, where one is the lowest and ten is the highest. There are no additional fees to the standard license.
What needs improvement with Aurea CX Messenger?
The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services because the earlier version is not using web service and cloud functionality. If Aurea could include these features in the fut...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SkipTheDishes, Malmberg, Dealer.com, Bench Accounting
Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon MQ vs. Aurea CX Messenger and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.