ActiveMQ vs Amazon SQS: What are the differences?
ActiveMQ: A message broker written in Java together with a full JMS client. 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; Amazon SQS: Fully managed message queuing service. 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.
ActiveMQ and Amazon SQS belong to "Message Queue" category of the tech stack.
"Open source" is the top reason why over 9 developers like ActiveMQ, while over 45 developers mention "Easy to use, reliable" as the leading cause for choosing Amazon SQS.
ActiveMQ is an open source tool with 1.49K GitHub stars and 1.04K GitHub forks. Here's a link to ActiveMQ's open source repository on GitHub.
Lyft, SendGrid, and PedidosYa are some of the popular companies that use Amazon SQS, whereas ActiveMQ is used by Intuit, Wix, and Bench. Amazon SQS has a broader approval, being mentioned in 381 company stacks & 101 developers stacks; compared to ActiveMQ, which is listed in 33 company stacks and 17 developer stacks.
What is ActiveMQ?
What is Amazon SQS?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using ActiveMQ?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
In the beginning we thought we wanted to start using something like RabbitMQ or maybe Kafka or maybe ActiveMQ. Back then we only had a few developers and no ops people. That has changed now, but we didn't really look forward to setting up a queuing cluster and making sure that all works.
What we did instead was we looked at what services Amazon offers to see if we can use those to build our own messaging system within those services. That's basically what we did. We wrote some clients in Ruby that can basically do the entire orchestration for us, and we run all our messaging on both SNS and SQS. Basically what you can do in Amazon services is you can use Amazon Simple Notification Service, so SNS, for creating topics and you can use queues to subscribe to these topics. That's basically all you need for a messaging system. You don't have to worry about scalability at all. That's what really appealed to us.
This isn't exactly low-latency (10s to 100s of milliseconds), but it has good throughput and a simple API. There is good reliability, and there is no configuration necessary to get up and running. A hosted queue is important when trying to move fast.
SQS is the bridge between our new Lambda services and our incumbent Rails applications. Extremely easy to use when you're already using other AWS infrastructure.
Remote broker and local client for incoming data feeds. Local broker for republishing data feeds to other systems.
Primary message queue. Enqueueing operations revert to a local file-system-based queue when SQS is unavailable.