We compared Red Hat AMQ and Apache Kafka based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
The user reviews highlight that Red Hat AMQ is praised for its robust messaging capabilities, seamless integration, and excellent scalability, with exceptional customer service and support. In contrast, Apache Kafka is valued for its high scalability and fault-tolerant architecture, real-time data handling, and support for stream processing and data replication. However, Apache Kafka does not have feedback on customer service, pricing, or ROI, unlike Red Hat AMQ, which has some areas for improvement in scalability, ease of deployment, and customization options.
Features: Red Hat AMQ is recognized for its robust messaging capabilities, seamless integration, excellent scalability, reliable performance, and advanced security measures. On the other hand, Apache Kafka stands out for its high scalability, fault-tolerant architecture, real-time data handling, easy integration, support for stream processing and data replication.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Red Hat AMQ is reported to be straightforward and hassle-free, with reasonable pricing. However, there is no available information regarding the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of Apache Kafka., Based on user feedback, Red Hat AMQ has a positive ROI with efficient workflow, increased productivity, reduced downtime, and improved message delivery. Apache Kafka's ROI reviews are either missing or unavailable.
Room for Improvement: Red Hat AMQ has room for improvement in scalability, ease of deployment, customization options, documentation, community support, platform stability, monitoring and management capabilities, and security features. In contrast, there is no specific feedback on improvement areas for Apache Kafka.
Deployment and customer support: Comparing the user reviews, Red Hat AMQ users mention varying timeframes for deployment and setup separately. In contrast, there is no information available regarding the duration required for Apache Kafka., Red Hat AMQ is highly regarded for its exceptional customer service and support. Users praise their prompt, friendly, and professional assistance, showcasing a deep understanding of their customers' needs. On the other hand, no feedback is available for Apache Kafka's customer service.
The summary above is based on 39 interviews we conducted recently with Red Hat AMQ and Apache Kafka users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Kafka, as compared with other messaging system options, is great for large scale message processing applications. It offers high throughput with built-in fault-tolerance and replication."
"The valuable features are the group community and support."
"Deployment is speedy."
"The most valuable features are the stream API, consumer groups, and the way that the scaling takes place."
"The processing power of Apache Kafka is good when you have requirements for high throughput and a large number of consumers."
"One of the most valuable features I have found is Kafka Connect."
"This is a system for email and other small devices. There has been a relay of transactions continuously over the last two years it has been in production."
"Resiliency is great and also the fact that it handles different data formats."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"My impression is that it is average in terms of scalability."
"The solution is very lightweight, easy to configure, simple to manage, and robust since it launched."
"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."
"Kafka requires non-trivial expertise with DevOps to deploy in production at scale. The organization needs to understand ZooKeeper and Kafka and should consider using additional tools, such as MirrorMaker, so that the organization can survive an availability zone or a region going down."
"While the solution scales well and easily, you need to understand your future needs and prep for the peaks."
"Prioritization of messages in Apache Kafka could improve."
"Kafka does not provide control over the message queue, so we do not know whether we are experiencing lost or duplicate messages."
"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."
"The GUI tools for monitoring and support are still very basic and not very rich. There is no help in determining a shard key for performance."
"If the graphical user interface was easier for the Kafka administration it would be much better. Right now, you need to use the program with the command-line interface. If the graphical user interface was easier, it could be a better product."
"AMQ could be better integrated with Jira and patch management tools."
"There is improvement needed to keep the support libraries updated."
"This product needs better visualization capabilities in general."
"There are several areas in this solution that need improvement, including clustering multi-nodes and message ordering."
"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."
"The turnaround of adopting new versions of underlying technologies sometimes is too slow."
"Red Hat AMQ's cost could be improved, and it could have better integration."
"The challenge is the multiple components it has. This brings a higher complexity compared to IBM MQ, which is a single complete unit."
Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 78 reviews while Red Hat AMQ is ranked 8th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 8 reviews. Apache Kafka is rated 8.0, while Red Hat AMQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat AMQ writes "A stable, open-source technology, with a convenient deployment". Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Anypoint MQ, PubSub+ Event Broker and VMware Tanzu Data Services, whereas Red Hat AMQ is most compared with ActiveMQ, IBM MQ, VMware Tanzu Data Services, IBM Event Streams and Amazon MQ. See our Apache Kafka 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.