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. CloudAMQP vs Kafka

CloudAMQP vs Kafka

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

CloudAMQP
CloudAMQP
Stacks62
Followers84
Votes7
Kafka
Kafka
Stacks24.2K
Followers22.3K
Votes607
GitHub Stars31.2K
Forks14.8K

CloudAMQP vs Kafka: What are the differences?

# Introduction

CloudAMQP and Kafka are both popular messaging systems used for real-time data processing in distributed environments.

1. **Architecture**: CloudAMQP is a managed RabbitMQ service in the cloud, offering a reliable message broker with queues, while Kafka is a distributed event streaming platform that is built as a distributed commit log service with topics and partitions.
2. **Use Case**: CloudAMQP is commonly used for traditional message queueing scenarios where message order and delivery are critical, while Kafka is ideal for real-time stream processing, event sourcing, and log aggregation due to its distributed nature and fault-tolerance.
3. **Scalability**: Kafka is designed to be highly scalable and can handle a high volume of data throughput across multiple consumers and producers, making it suitable for big data use cases. In comparison, CloudAMQP is more focused on providing a reliable message queue service with less emphasis on scalability.
4. **Durability and Persistence**: CloudAMQP uses RabbitMQ, which supports a variety of storage backends for data durability, but it lacks the fault tolerance mechanisms and data replication capabilities that Kafka offers out of the box, making Kafka more suitable for mission-critical applications that require data persistence and reliability.
5. **Latency**: Kafka is optimized for low-latency processing and can handle high throughput, making it the preferred choice for real-time data streaming applications where minimal latency is crucial. CloudAMQP, on the other hand, may introduce higher latency due to its architecture and may not be suitable for scenarios that require real-time processing.
6. **Community and Ecosystem**: Kafka has a vibrant community and a rich ecosystem of tools and integrations, making it easier to find resources and support for development and maintenance. CloudAMQP, being a managed service, may have limited community resources and integrations compared to Kafka.

In Summary, CloudAMQP is more suitable for traditional message queueing scenarios with emphasis on reliability and message order, while Kafka is geared towards real-time stream processing, scalability, fault-tolerance, and low-latency processing for big data applications.

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 CloudAMQP, Kafka

Tarun
Tarun

Senior Software Developer at Okta

Dec 4, 2021

Review

We have faced the same question some time ago. Before I begin, DO NOT use Redis as a message broker. It is fast and easy to set up in the beginning but it does not scale. It is not made to be reliable in scale and that is mentioned in the official docs. This analysis of our problems with Redis may help you.

We have used Kafka and RabbitMQ both in scale. We concluded that RabbitMQ is a really good general purpose message broker (for our case) and Kafka is really fast but limited in features. That’s the trade off that we understood from using it. In-fact I blogged about the trade offs between Kafka and RabbitMQ to document it. I hope it helps you in choosing the best pub-sub layer for your use case.

153k views153k
Comments
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

Detailed Comparison

CloudAMQP
CloudAMQP
Kafka
Kafka

Fully managed, highly available RabbitMQ servers and clusters, on all major compute platforms.

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

Support - 24/7 support, via email, chat and phone.; Real time metrics and alarms - Get notified in advanced when your queues are growing faster than you're consuming them, when you're servers are over loaded etc. and take action before it becomes a problem.; Auto-healing - Our monitoring systems automatically detects and fixes a lot of problems such as kernel bugs, auto-restarts, RabbitMQ/Erlang version upgrades etc.; Metrics - Of course the default RabbitMQ interface is available, which gives you great inspection capabilities of your queues and message throughput, but we also gives you CPU, RAM and disk graphs to help you monitor the health and resource consumption of your clusters.;
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
-
GitHub Stars
31.2K
GitHub Forks
-
GitHub Forks
14.8K
Stacks
62
Stacks
24.2K
Followers
84
Followers
22.3K
Votes
7
Votes
607
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 4
    Some of the best customer support you'll ever find
  • 3
    Easy to provision
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
Integrations
AppHarbor
AppHarbor
Google Compute Engine
Google Compute Engine
Heroku
Heroku
DigitalOcean
DigitalOcean
Amazon EC2
Amazon EC2
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
SoftLayer
SoftLayer
dotCloud
dotCloud
Pivotal Web Services (PWS)
Pivotal Web Services (PWS)
AppFog
AppFog
No integrations available

What are some alternatives to CloudAMQP, Kafka?

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