ActiveMQ vs XMPP

Overview

ActiveMQ

Stacks879

Followers1.3K

Votes77

GitHub Stars2.4K

Forks1.5K

XMPP

Stacks70

Followers138

Votes0

ActiveMQ vs XMPP: What are the differences?

Introduction

Apache ActiveMQ and XMPP (Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol) are both popular messaging protocols used in communication systems. Despite serving similar purposes, there are distinct differences between the two that can affect their usage in different scenarios.

Message Types: ActiveMQ primarily focuses on message queuing, where messages are stored in queues until the recipient retrieves them. On the other hand, XMPP is designed for real-time messaging, allowing instant delivery of messages between users without the need for a message queue system.
Protocol Support: ActiveMQ uses the OpenWire protocol for communication between clients and brokers, while XMPP relies on the XML-based protocol for instant messaging. This difference in protocol support can influence the flexibility and performance of the messaging systems based on these protocols.
Scalability: ActiveMQ is well-suited for scenarios requiring high throughput and extensive scalability, making it a preferred choice for large-scale enterprise applications. XMPP, on the other hand, is more commonly used for smaller-scale messaging systems due to its design for real-time communication.
Presence Management: XMPP includes built-in support for presence management, allowing users to see the current availability status of others in their contact list. ActiveMQ lacks this feature as it is primarily focused on message queuing and delivery rather than presence signaling.
Community and Ecosystem: ActiveMQ has a robust community and ecosystem with extensive documentation and plugins available for various integrations and extensions. XMPP also has a supportive community; however, it may not be as extensive as the one surrounding ActiveMQ, which could impact the availability of resources and support for users.

In Summary, Apache ActiveMQ and XMPP differ in their message types, protocol support, scalability, presence management capabilities, and community ecosystems, making each protocol better suited for specific use cases in communication systems.

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)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

ActiveMQ	XMPP
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.	It is a set of open technologies for instant messaging, presence, multi-party chat, voice and video calls, collaboration, lightweight middleware, content syndication, and generalized routing of XML data.
Protect your data & Balance your Load; Easy enterprise integration patterns; Flexible deployment	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars 2.4K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 1.5K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 879	Stacks 70
Followers 1.3K	Followers 138
Votes 77	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 18 Easy to use 14 Open source 13 Efficient 10 JMS compliant 6 High Availability Cons 1 Low resilience to exceptions and interruptions 1 ONLY Vertically Scalable 1 Support 1 Difficult to scale	No community feedback yet
Integrations
No integrations available	Java Python JavaScript

What are some alternatives to ActiveMQ, XMPP?

Kubernetes

Kubernetes is an open source orchestration system for Docker containers. It handles scheduling onto nodes in a compute cluster and actively manages workloads to ensure that their state matches the users declared intentions.

Rancher

Rancher is an open source container management platform that includes full distributions of Kubernetes, Apache Mesos and Docker Swarm, and makes it simple to operate container clusters on any cloud or infrastructure platform.

Kafka

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

RabbitMQ

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

Docker Compose

With Compose, you define a multi-container application in a single file, then spin your application up in a single command which does everything that needs to be done to get it running.

Docker Swarm

Swarm serves the standard Docker API, so any tool which already communicates with a Docker daemon can use Swarm to transparently scale to multiple hosts: Dokku, Compose, Krane, Deis, DockerUI, Shipyard, Drone, Jenkins... and, of course, the Docker client itself.

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.

Tutum

Tutum lets developers easily manage and run lightweight, portable, self-sufficient containers from any application. AWS-like control, Heroku-like ease. The same container that a developer builds and tests on a laptop can run at scale in Tutum.

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 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.

Related Comparisons

ActiveMQ vs XMPP: What are the differences?

Introduction

Message Types: ActiveMQ primarily focuses on message queuing, where messages are stored in queues until the recipient retrieves them. On the other hand, XMPP is designed for real-time messaging, allowing instant delivery of messages between users without the need for a message queue system.
Protocol Support: ActiveMQ uses the OpenWire protocol for communication between clients and brokers, while XMPP relies on the XML-based protocol for instant messaging. This difference in protocol support can influence the flexibility and performance of the messaging systems based on these protocols.
Scalability: ActiveMQ is well-suited for scenarios requiring high throughput and extensive scalability, making it a preferred choice for large-scale enterprise applications. XMPP, on the other hand, is more commonly used for smaller-scale messaging systems due to its design for real-time communication.
Presence Management: XMPP includes built-in support for presence management, allowing users to see the current availability status of others in their contact list. ActiveMQ lacks this feature as it is primarily focused on message queuing and delivery rather than presence signaling.
Community and Ecosystem: ActiveMQ has a robust community and ecosystem with extensive documentation and plugins available for various integrations and extensions. XMPP also has a supportive community; however, it may not be as extensive as the one surrounding ActiveMQ, which could impact the availability of resources and support for users.

ActiveMQ vs XMPP

Overview