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

Amazon SQS vs IBM MQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon SQS
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM MQ
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
162
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (1st), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Amazon SQS is 12.3%, down from 19.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM MQ is 29.2%, up from 26.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Aravind Nithiyanandham - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for notifying, queuing servers, and queuing messages
I created a support ticket one or two years ago. The technical support team responded promptly and helped us with the issues. I am very much happy with the solution’s technical support. They are knowledgeable, understand our problem easily, and then figure out the issues. On a scale from one to ten, where one is bad and ten is excellent, I rate the solution’s technical support nine and a half out of ten.
SelvaKumar4 - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers the ability to batch metadata transfers between systems that support MQ as the communication method
We find it scalable for internal applications, but not so much for external integrations. It should support a wider range of protocols, not just a few specific ones. Many other products have broader protocol support, and IBM MQ is lagging in that area. IBM MQ needs to improve the UI for quicker logging. Users should also have a lot more control over logging, with a dashboard-like interface. That's something they should definitely work on.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like how we can subscribe to multiple topics in Amazon SQS. It's also much simpler and quicker to set up than other solutions. It also supports patterns like Kafka and RapidMQ's fan-out pattern but with easier implementation."
"We use the tool in interface integrations."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"With SQS, we can trigger events in various cloud environments. It offers numerous benefits for us."
"The dead-letter queue is very helpful in maintaining the messages that come into the queue."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"It works consistently and is economical under a standard non-FIFO model."
"We use our routing feature when the request is coming from the business application. The request goes to the distributive side and it is routed to the right claim instance."
"Setting up MQ is easy. We had a "grow as you go" implementation strategy. We started with a single channel and progressed to multiple queues and channels depending on the systems and integrations with other systems. It was a gradual deployment and expansion as we grew the services interacting with the core system using MQ."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"The thing that I like about MQ most is its reliability. It's one of those types of products that just works. You don't have to tinker around with it too much."
"The message queue and the integration with any development platform/language, i.e., NET and Java, are the most valuable features."
"IBM is still adding some features and coding some other systems on the security end. However, it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes."
"Technical support is quite helpful."
"It is useful for exchanging information between applications."
 

Cons

"It would be easier to have a dashboard that allows us to see everything and manage everything since we have so many queues."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing, especially for the FIFO model."
"Packages sometimes have delays in dropping, indicating reliability issues."
"A feature I would like to see in Amazon SQS is the ability to view the content of messages without removing them from the queue."
"Sometimes, we have to switch to another component similar to SQS because the patching tool for SQS is relatively slow for us."
"Improvement is needed in terms of troubleshooting and logs."
"It would be beneficial to have the ability to peek at messages currently in Amazon SQS without needing to monitor incoming messages."
"The tool needs improvement in user-friendliness and discoverability."
"They have provided a Liberty Profile in the Web Console for administration, and that could be further enhanced. It is not fit for use by an enterprise. They have to get rid of their WebSphere process and develop a front-end on Node.js or the like."
"MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ."
"IBM MQ's pricing is higher than its competitors'."
"IBM MQ could improve capacity, monitoring, and automatization."
"The issue is that they're using a very old clustering model."
"I can't say pricing is good."
"Presenting and maybe having some different options for different user experiences based on the administrative duties that you have to do as an app manager or configure the server or security would be an improvement."
"If they could have some front-end monitoring tool that could be easily available for the team to use, that could be great."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's quite expensive."
"Amazon SQS is quite expensive and is at the highest price point compared to other solutions."
"SQS's pricing is very good - I would rate it nine out of ten."
"The pricing model is pay-as-you-use. It depends on your usage and configuration."
"Compared to the other options and based on what I have heard, Amazon SQS is relatively more expensive, but it is not insanely expensive."
"Amazon SQS is more affordable compared to other solutions."
"Amazon SQS is moderately priced."
"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."
"99.999 percent availability for less than a penny per message over the past 25 years. IBM MQ is the cheapest software in the IBM software portfolio, and it is one of the best."
"Small-scale companies may not want to buy IBM MQ because of its high cost."
"IBM's licensing model seems more reasonable than some competitors. They charge based on usage, which is good."
"The problem with this product is that it's a little bit expensive."
"The price of IBM MQ could improve by being less expensive."
"IBM MQ is an expensive solution compared to other solutions. However, if you pay less you will not receive the same experience or features."
"I think IBM needs to look at its pricing. The prices of IBM products should be simple. The old way of pricing should now be moving on to the cloud to be pay as you go, a plan-based kind of pricing."
"Our costs haven't increased but they also have not improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
816,192 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon SQS?
A feature I would like to see in Amazon SQS is the ability to view the content of messages without removing them from the queue. Enhanced filtering on the messages would be beneficial, as currently...
What is your primary use case for Amazon SQS?
The most common use case for Amazon SQS is decoupling an application. Instead of having one monolithic service with a timeout of about a minute, and if there are too many requests at the same time ...
What is MQ software?
Hi As someone with 45+ years of experience in the Transaction and Message Processing world, I have seen many "MQ" solutions that have come into the market place. From my perspective, while each pro...
What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
How does IBM MQ compare with VMware RabbitMQ?
IBM MQ has a great reputation behind it, and this solution is very robust with great stability. It is easy to use, simple to configure and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocol...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
WebSphere MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EMS, NASA, BMW, Capital One
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon SQS vs. IBM MQ and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,192 professionals have used our research since 2012.