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

Apache Kafka vs IBM MQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 12, 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

Apache Kafka
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
86
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (8th)
IBM MQ
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
163
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (1st), Message Queue (MQ) Software (1st), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

Apache Kafka and IBM MQ aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Apache Kafka is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 2.4%, up 2.0% compared to last year.
IBM MQ, on the other hand, focuses on Message Queue (MQ) Software, holds 24.7% mindshare, up 20.6% since last year.
Streaming Analytics
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Q&A Highlights

NC
Sep 04, 2023
 

Featured Reviews

Snehasish Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Data streaming transforms real-time data movement with impressive scalability
I worked with Apache Kafka for customers in the financial industry and OTT platforms. They use Kafka particularly for data streaming. Companies offering movie and entertainment as a service, similar to Netflix, use Kafka Apache Kafka offers unique data streaming. It allows the use of data in…
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

"Kafka is an open-source tool that's easy to use in our country, and the command line interface is powerful."
"Apache Kafka is actually a distributed commit log. That is different than most messaging and queuing systems before it."
"Apache Kafka is very fast and stable."
"Kafka is scalable to any degree we want, and it has several connectors available for integration in multiple languages, making it easier for integration."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance."
"A great streaming platform."
"Resiliency is great and also the fact that it handles different data formats."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is its versatility. It can solve many use cases or can be a part of many use cases. Its fundamental value of it is in the real-time processing capability."
"I think the whole product is useful. Their database and all is very good, and the product is fine. The fact that it ensures message delivery is probably the most important thing. I also like that you're able to trace and track everything. If it doesn't arrive at the destination, it will go back to the queue, and no message will be lost."
"The most valuable features are the point to point messaging and the MQ API."
"Data integrity, reliability and security are valuable features that IBM MQ possesses."
"The high availability and session recovery are the most valuable features because we need the solution live all day."
"We like IBM MQ for our synchronous communications and transactional applications that require a lot of CPS."
"I like the MQ's simplicity and rock-solid stability. I've never experienced a failure in two decades caused by the product itself. It has only failed due to human error."
"There is no dependency on the end party service's run status."
"It is quite stable."
 

Cons

"The graphical user environment is currently lacking."
"In the next release, I would like for there to be some authorization and HTL security."
"In the data sharing space, the performance of Apache Kafka could be improved."
"There have been some challenges with monitoring Apache Kafka, as there are currently only a few production-grade solutions available, which are all under enterprise license and therefore not easily accessible. The speaker has not had access to any of these solutions and has instead relied on tools, such as Dynatrace, which do not provide sufficient insight into the Apache Kafka system. While there are other tools available, they do not offer the same level of real-time data as enterprise solutions."
"The solution's initial setup process was complex."
"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."
"For the original Kafka, there is room for improvement in terms of latency spikes and resource consumption. It consumes a lot of memory."
"The interface has room for improvement, and there is a steep learning curve for Hadoop integration. It was a struggle learning to send from Hadoop to Kafka. In future releases, I'd like to see improvements in ETL functionality and Hadoop integration."
"It would be nice if we could use the cluster facilities because we are doing active/passive configuration use."
"Should have more integration in the monitoring tools."
"The user interface should be enhanced to include more monitoring features and other metrics. The metrics should include not only those from the IBM MQ point of view but also CPU and memory utilization."
"There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily."
"The GUI part could be better."
"IBM MQ is not very user-friendly."
"I believe the stability of the product has decreased since we began using it initially."
"The pricing needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Apache Kafka is an open-source solution and there are no fees, but there are fees associated with confluence, which are based on subscription."
"Licensing issues are not applicable. Apache licensing makes it simple with almost zero cost for the software itself."
"The price of the solution is low."
"Apache Kafka is free."
"It's quite affordable considering the value it provides."
"We use the free version."
"Apache Kafka has an open-source pricing."
"Apache Kafka is an open-source solution."
"If one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the tool's price a seven. The product is expensive."
"The pricing needs improvement."
"Small-scale companies may not want to buy IBM MQ because of its high cost."
"IBM is expensive."
"It's super expensive, so ask them if they can consolidate some other licensing costs. But, IBM is IBM, so I guess we'll pay for it."
"IBM's licensing model seems more reasonable than some competitors. They charge based on usage, which is good."
"I rate the product price a four on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"Use the new and lightweight version (Liberty) to lower licensing costs. It is also easier to upgrade/maintain."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

NC
Sep 4, 2023
Sep 4, 2023
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 users. This tool has great scalability with high throughput and a very helpful supportive online community. However, Kafka does not provide control over the message queue, so it is difficult to know wheth...
2 out of 3 answers
Oct 31, 2021
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 users. This tool has great scalability with high throughput and a very helpful supportive online community. However, Kafka does not provide control over the message queue, so it is difficult to know whether messages are being delivered, lost, or duplicated. We would like to see more adapters for connecting to different systems made available. I think this would be a better product if the graphical user interface was easier. The manual calculations needed for this solution can be difficult. If the process was automated, it would be a much better product. IBM MQ has a very strong reputation and is very robust with great stability. This solution is easy to use, simple to configure, and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocols. IBM ensures message delivery. You can track and trace everything. If a message doesn’t arrive at its destination, it will go back to the queue; this ensures no message is ever lost. This is a huge selling point for us. IBM MQ does not handle huge volume very well, though. There are some limitations to the queues. If these limitations could be relaxed, it would be a better product for us. You have to license per application and installation, so scaling up can get very costly very quickly. Conclusion Apache Kafka is a cost-effective solution for high-volume, multi-source data collection. If you are in a high-growth trajectory and if total message accountability and tracking is not a huge issue for you, this solution may work well for you. IBM MQ is a licensed product and can be very expensive, it also does not scale easily, which can be very problematic. IBM MQ requires a definite skillset that not many people have, which can be an issue for some and it affects the fast responsive support of this solution.
GT
Sep 14, 2022
The choice depends on your use case.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
31%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
5%
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What do you like most about Apache Kafka?
Apache Kafka is an open-source solution that can be used for messaging or event processing.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Kafka?
The open-source version of Apache Kafka results in minimal costs, mainly linked to accessing documentation and limited support. Enterprises usually opt for the more cost-effective open-source edition.
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...
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...
What do you like most about IBM MQ?
The feature I find most effective for ensuring message delivery without loss is the backup threshold. This feature allows for automatic retries of transactional messages within a specified threshold.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
WebSphere MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Uber, Netflix, Activision, Spotify, Slack, Pinterest
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache Kafka vs. IBM MQ and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.