No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Aurea CX Messenger vs VMware Tanzu Data Solutions 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

Aurea CX Messenger
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
12th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (4th), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (14th), SOA Governance (6th), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (8th)
VMware Tanzu Data Solutions
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
85
Ranking in other categories
Database Development and Management (5th), Relational Databases Tools (14th), Data Warehouse (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 3.5%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of VMware Tanzu Data Solutions is 9.3%, up from 4.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
VMware Tanzu Data Solutions9.3%
Aurea CX Messenger3.5%
Other87.2%
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. IT Analyst at NCR Corporation
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…
Karthik Shivaram - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Manager at STI INFOTECH PVT LTD
Improved multi-cloud data management has simplified operations and supports seamless Kubernetes
From my perspective, the biggest challenge with VMware right now is the pricing. To be very honest, in many cases I find myself recommending alternative solutions instead of VMware. Even if those alternatives come with a bit more complexity, customers are often more willing to accept that than the current VMware pricing model. In the past, VMware used a socket-based licensing model, which was easier for customers to understand and budget for. Now the shift to a core-based licensing model has significantly increased costs for many environments, especially for organizations running modern high-core CPUs. One positive aspect of the new model is that VMware has bundled several components together. For example, earlier when deploying vSphere, customers also had to purchase vCenter separately for management. Now multiple components are packaged into a single SKU, which simplifies some aspects of procurement and deployment. While this consolidation has its benefits, the overall licensing and commercial costs remain very high. Pricing is not the only issue. I believe Broadcom also needs to reconsider its strategy in light of the current market conditions. The approach they are taking may be strategic from a business perspective, but from what I see in the field, it is leading to lost opportunities. Many customers who previously relied on VMware are now actively exploring alternative virtualization platforms. I’m not sure where this direction will ultimately lead, but based on my experience, it is already affecting adoption. Since you’ve been trying to reach me for some time—and we also had a discussion a couple of years ago—I hope this feedback helps Broadcom understand the current sentiment in the market and potentially make adjustments. Another important concern is the way features are bundled. In many cases, customers only need basic virtualization and high availability capabilities. However, the current packaging often includes additional features that they may not need. A good analogy is that if a customer only needs an entry-level car, we shouldn’t be forced to sell them a Rolls-Royce. VMware could benefit from adopting a more modular or à la carte licensing model, where customers can choose only the components they truly require. For example, if a customer only needs core virtualization functionality, they should be able to purchase just that. This would allow partners and solution providers to better align solutions with customer requirements and position VMware more competitively in the market. Another challenge I want to highlight is the pricing model based on U.S. dollars and the way multi-year licensing is handled. In many enterprise and government projects, customers prefer to commit to three-year or five-year licenses and pay the full amount upfront. However, in approximately 20% of the deals I work on, we lose opportunities because VMware only provides dollar-based pricing for the first year. When it comes to the following years, the contract requires renewals annually rather than allowing a fixed multi-year upfront payment. This approach is particularly problematic for government and public sector customers. Many of them are ready and willing to pay for three or five years in advance, but the current VMware model does not support that structure effectively. Because pricing is tied to the U.S. dollar and subject to yearly adjustments, VMware does not lock in pricing for the full term. From a customer’s perspective, this introduces uncertainty and makes procurement more complicated. Ideally, if a price is quoted—for example, $100 per year—it should remain consistent across a multi-year agreement. Customers would be comfortable committing to a five-year term if the price were fixed and predictable. Unfortunately, that flexibility is currently not available across VMware products, whether it is vSphere, VMware Tanzu solutions, or other offerings. For large enterprise environments, one-year commitments are usually not practical. Many enterprise customers prefer longer-term agreements for budgeting and procurement reasons. Even when they are willing to accept the higher cost associated with the core-based licensing model, the lack of a clear multi-year upfront option often becomes a deal-breaker.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution offers excellent stability."
"My advice to anyone considering Aurea CX Messenger is just try it; from my experience, it is very easy to deploy, very easy to develop and to implement in production."
"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."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The solution's stability is excellent; it's one of the best features, and we haven't experienced any bugs or glitches that have affected its performance."
"Easy to deploy new services."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"Sonic is lightweight, scalable, and does the work; easy to start, setup, and manage, and compared with Oracle much easier and cheaper."
"After creating a RabbitMQ service, they provide you with a sort of web management dashboard."
"Being MPP which is a bulk operator - we were able to do 1.5 million calculation in 15 minutes."
"After almost two years' usage in our production environment, I am impressed by how stable the platform is - even when running on Windows Server 2012."
"This is a great product; it is lightweight, supports cloud native applications, is easy to implement, is easily manageable, and has excellent support."
"It stands out because it's opensource and cost effective, and it does everything pretty well."
"The loading speed is very good."
"Allowing for a fully asynchronous solution is crucial for this particular feature."
"I like the high throughput of 20K messages/sec, and that it supports multiple protocols."
 

Cons

"I would definitely like to see marketing for this product."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"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."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"The 2015 version was a nightmare at the beginning compared with 2013 version."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"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."
"When they are full, we might lose everything."
"Their implementation is quite tricky. It's not that easy to implement RabbitMQ as a cluster."
"Scalability issues are present. Most of our functions or jobs are queued due to that."
"I would like to see improvements in fluent configuration."
"Temporarily stopping shovels is also not possible in the web interface."
"I'd like to see more support for structured data and features related to queries on NoSQL keys, extra filters would be helpful."
"It doesn't work as efficiently as we'd like because it requires more segment node capacity (size, RAM, CPU) than we currently have."
"The implementation of an upgrade takes a long time."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is not so high."
"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
"It is an open-source platform. Although, we have to pay for additional features."
"It is the best product with best fit for price/performance customer objectives."
"Since the tool is an open-source product, there is no need to pay anything."
"The price is pretty good."
"It’s an open-source solution."
"We are using the open-source version of this solution."
"The pricing for RabbitMQ is reasonable. It is worth the cost."
"The product is available for free use since it is an open-source technology."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
892,487 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Non Profit
9%
Media Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise49
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 VMware RabbitMQ?
RabbitMQ provides access to SDKs for development and the ability to raise and log tickets if we encounter issues. We can integrate RabbitMQ using various languages like Java or Python using the pro...
What needs improvement with VMware RabbitMQ?
Implementing a circuit breaker scenario using RabbitMQ is complicated. This complexity arises because manual intervention is required to manage worker details and handle operations based on worker ...
 

Also Known As

CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
Greenplum, Pivotal Greenplum, VMware RabbitMQ, VMware Tanzu GemFire, VMware Postgres
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
General Electric, Conversant, China CITIC Bank, Aridhia, Purdue University
Find out what your peers are saying about Aurea CX Messenger vs. VMware Tanzu Data Solutions and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
892,487 professionals have used our research since 2012.