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 Oct 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache Kafka
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (7th)
IBM MQ
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
162
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 0.2%, up 0.0% compared to last year.
IBM MQ, on the other hand, focuses on Message Queue (MQ) Software, holds 29.2% mindshare, up 26.4% since last year.
Streaming Analytics
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Q&A Highlights

NC
Sep 04, 2023
 

Featured Reviews

Eyob Alemu - PeerSpot reviewer
Significant cost savings with real-time processing and fast recovery
We use Kafka for a stage event-driven process from a process perspective. Our platform is an ID platform, so after registration data is received, it has to be stored from various registration locations. The process includes stages like quality checking, consistency, format, biometric data checking…
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

"As a software developer, I have found Apache Kafka's support to be the most valuable...The solution is easy to integrate with any of our systems."
"The most valuable feature is the performance."
"It is a useful way to maintain messages and to manage offset from our consumers."
"The publisher-subscriber pattern and low latency are also essential features that greatly piqued my interest."
"Apache Kafka has good integration capabilities and has plenty of adapters in its ecosystem if you want to build something. There are adapters for many platforms, such as Java, Azure, and Microsoft's ecosystem. Other solutions, such as Pulsar have fewer adapters available."
"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."
"Apache Kafka's most valuable features include clustering and sharding...It is a pretty stable solution."
"The open-source version is relatively straightforward to set up and only takes a few minutes."
"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 most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server."
"Reliable integration between MQ servers is the most valuable feature."
"It's ability to scale, it's ability to do guaranteed delivery and it's ability to do point-to-point of what we subscribe are the most valuable features."
"Has helped integrate between applications, reduce rework, and costs by reusing working components of existing applications."
"IBM MQ is the right choice because of the stability and the performance. And from the support perspective, it's enough to have a really small team."
"This product has good security."
"The solution allows one to easily configure an IBM MQQueueManager."
 

Cons

"Prioritization of messages in Apache Kafka could improve."
"The solution can improve its cloud support."
"Apache Kafka could improve data loss and compatibility with Spark."
"An area for improvement would be growth."
"I would like to see monitoring service tools."
"The management tool could be improved."
"Pulsar gives more scalability to an even grouping, but Apache Kafka is used more if you want to send something in a time series-based. If this does not matter to you then Pulsar could be more customizable. Apache Kafka is nothing but a streaming system with local storage."
"The management overhead is more compared to the messaging system. There are challenges here and there. Like for long usage, it requires restarts and nodes from time to time."
"There are many complications with IBM MQ servers."
"The pricing needs improvement."
"There are no improvements needed at this time."
"IBM MQ could streamline its complexity to be more like Kafka without the channel complexities of clusters, making it more straightforward."
"I would just like a more user-friendly experience to do common administration tasks. I know that you can use MQ Explorer, but having something that's already built in would definitely be useful."
"They probably need to virtualize the MQ flow and allow us to design the MQ flow using the UI. It would also help to migrate to the cloud easily and implement AWS Lambda functions with minimum coding. If you have to code, then just with NodeJS or Java."
"The monitoring could be improved. It's a pain to monitor the throughput through the MQ. The maximum throughput for a queue or single channel isn't clear. We could also use some professional services by IBM to assess and tune the performance."
"It is expensive. The cost is high. There should be more improvement in the new age of technologies."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Apache Kafka is an open-sourced solution. There are fees if you want the support, and I would recommend it for enterprises. There are annual subscriptions available."
"Kafka is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs."
"Apache Kafka has an open-source pricing."
"The solution is open source; it's free to use."
"It is approximately $600,000 USD."
"I was using the product's free version."
"Apache Kafka is an open-source solution."
"The price of the solution is low."
"IBM MQ is an expensive solution compared to other solutions. However, if you pay less you will not receive the same experience or features."
"IBM's licensing model seems more reasonable than some competitors. They charge based on usage, which is good."
"To implement such an IBM solution, a company has to pay a lot in term of licensing and consultancy. A pricing model might be a better option."
"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."
"The price of the solution could be reduced, and we are on an annual subscription."
"The pricing needs improvement."
"It's a very expensive product."
"The license for IBM MQ is commercial and not cheap. You get a multi-platform solution, which is important because it lets you connect systems on mainframes, personal solutions, Unix, Linux, etc."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 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
13%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Retailer
5%
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 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?
I would rate the overall cost of using Kafka as a three out of ten, indicating that it is rather affordable, considering the benefits and savings it provides.
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
 

Learn More

 

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.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.