StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Utilities
  3. Background Jobs
  4. Message Queue
  5. Amazon MQ vs Kafka

Amazon MQ vs Kafka

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Kafka
Kafka
Stacks24.2K
Followers22.3K
Votes607
GitHub Stars31.2K
Forks14.8K
Amazon MQ
Amazon MQ
Stacks55
Followers325
Votes12

Amazon MQ vs Kafka: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will explore the key differences between Amazon MQ and Kafka. Both Amazon MQ and Kafka are popular messaging systems used for distributed data streaming and processing. However, there are some significant differences between them that make them suitable for different use cases.

  1. Messaging Model: Amazon MQ is based on the traditional message-oriented middleware (MOM) model. It supports Point-to-Point (PTP) and Publish/Subscribe (Pub/Sub) messaging patterns. On the other hand, Kafka follows the publish-subscribe messaging pattern, also known as the log-based messaging model. It is designed to handle high-throughput, fault-tolerant, distributed streaming of data.

  2. Data Durability: Amazon MQ provides strong durability guarantees by persisting messages to storage systems like Amazon EBS. It ensures that messages are not lost even in the event of failures. On the other hand, Kafka provides configurable durability guarantees by replicating the data across multiple brokers. It allows for different trade-offs between durability and performance based on the replication factor configured.

  3. Latency: Amazon MQ offers low-latency message delivery since it relies on underlying messaging technologies like ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ. It is suitable for applications that require low-latency messaging. On the other hand, Kafka focuses more on high-throughput and fault-tolerant data streaming rather than low-latency messaging. It can handle high volumes of data with moderate latency.

  4. Scalability: Amazon MQ provides auto-scaling capabilities. It dynamically scales the brokers based on the workload to handle increased message traffic. Kafka, on the other hand, is inherently designed to be highly scalable. It can handle millions of messages per second and supports horizontal scaling by adding more brokers to the cluster.

  5. Message Ordering: Amazon MQ guarantees message ordering within a single message group, but not across multiple groups or consumers. Kafka ensures strict message ordering at the partition level, meaning messages published to the same partition are received in the order they were sent. However, there is no global ordering across partitions.

  6. Ecosystem and Integrations: Amazon MQ integrates well with other AWS services, making it a suitable choice if you are already using AWS for your infrastructure. Kafka has a rich ecosystem and extensive integrations with various tools and frameworks. It is widely adopted and supported by many third-party tools, making it a popular choice for data streaming and processing in different environments.

In summary, Amazon MQ follows a traditional message-oriented middleware model, offers strong durability guarantees, low-latency messaging, auto-scaling capabilities, limited message ordering, and integrates well with AWS services. Kafka, on the other hand, follows a log-based messaging model, offers configurable durability guarantees, handles high-throughput data streaming, has inherent scalability, strict message ordering at the partition level, and has a rich ecosystem of integrations.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Kafka, Amazon MQ

viradiya
viradiya

Apr 12, 2020

Needs adviceonAngularJSAngularJSASP.NET CoreASP.NET CoreMSSQLMSSQL

We are going to develop a microservices-based application. It consists of AngularJS, ASP.NET Core, and MSSQL.

We have 3 types of microservices. Emailservice, Filemanagementservice, Filevalidationservice

I am a beginner in microservices. But I have read about RabbitMQ, but come to know that there are Redis and Kafka also in the market. So, I want to know which is best.

933k views933k
Comments
Kirill
Kirill

GO/C developer at Duckling Sales

Feb 16, 2021

Decided

Maybe not an obvious comparison with Kafka, since Kafka is pretty different from rabbitmq. But for small service, Rabbit as a pubsub platform is super easy to use and pretty powerful. Kafka as an alternative was the original choice, but its really a kind of overkill for a small-medium service. Especially if you are not planning to use k8s, since pure docker deployment can be a pain because of networking setup. Google PubSub was another alternative, its actually pretty cheap, but I never tested it since Rabbit was matching really good for mailing/notification services.

266k views266k
Comments
Ishfaq
Ishfaq

Feb 28, 2020

Needs advice

Our backend application is sending some external messages to a third party application at the end of each backend (CRUD) API call (from UI) and these external messages take too much extra time (message building, processing, then sent to the third party and log success/failure), UI application has no concern to these extra third party messages.

So currently we are sending these third party messages by creating a new child thread at end of each REST API call so UI application doesn't wait for these extra third party API calls.

I want to integrate Apache Kafka for these extra third party API calls, so I can also retry on failover third party API calls in a queue(currently third party messages are sending from multiple threads at the same time which uses too much processing and resources) and logging, etc.

Question 1: Is this a use case of a message broker?

Question 2: If it is then Kafka vs RabitMQ which is the better?

804k views804k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Kafka
Kafka
Amazon MQ
Amazon MQ

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

Amazon MQ is a managed message broker service for Apache ActiveMQ that makes it easy to set up and operate message brokers in the cloud.

Written at LinkedIn in Scala;Used by LinkedIn to offload processing of all page and other views;Defaults to using persistence, uses OS disk cache for hot data (has higher throughput then any of the above having persistence enabled);Supports both on-line as off-line processing
-
Statistics
GitHub Stars
31.2K
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Forks
14.8K
GitHub Forks
-
Stacks
24.2K
Stacks
55
Followers
22.3K
Followers
325
Votes
607
Votes
12
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 126
    High-throughput
  • 119
    Distributed
  • 92
    Scalable
  • 86
    High-Performance
  • 66
    Durable
Cons
  • 32
    Non-Java clients are second-class citizens
  • 29
    Needs Zookeeper
  • 9
    Operational difficulties
  • 5
    Terrible Packaging
Pros
  • 7
    Supports low IQ developers
  • 3
    Supports existing protocols (JMS, NMS, AMQP, STOMP, …)
  • 2
    Easy to migrate existing messaging service
Cons
  • 4
    Slow AF
Integrations
No integrations available
AWS IAM
AWS IAM
Amazon CloudWatch
Amazon CloudWatch
ActiveMQ
ActiveMQ

What are some alternatives to Kafka, Amazon MQ?

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

Celery

Celery

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

Amazon SQS

Amazon SQS

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

NSQ

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

ActiveMQ

ActiveMQ

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

ZeroMQ

ZeroMQ

The 0MQ lightweight messaging kernel is a library which extends the standard socket interfaces with features traditionally provided by specialised messaging middleware products. 0MQ sockets provide an abstraction of asynchronous message queues, multiple messaging patterns, message filtering (subscriptions), seamless access to multiple transport protocols and more.

Apache NiFi

Apache NiFi

An easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and distribute data. It supports powerful and scalable directed graphs of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

Gearman

Gearman

Gearman allows you to do work in parallel, to load balance processing, and to call functions between languages. It can be used in a variety of applications, from high-availability web sites to the transport of database replication events.

Memphis

Memphis

Highly scalable and effortless data streaming platform. Made to enable developers and data teams to collaborate and build real-time and streaming apps fast.

IronMQ

IronMQ

An easy-to-use highly available message queuing service. Built for distributed cloud applications with critical messaging needs. Provides on-demand message queuing with advanced features and cloud-optimized performance.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase