Amazon SQS vs IronMQ: What are the differences?
What is 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.
What is IronMQ? Message Queue for any deployment. 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.
Amazon SQS and IronMQ can be categorized as "Message Queue" tools.
Some of the features offered by Amazon SQS are:
- A queue can be created in any region.
- The message payload can contain up to 256KB of text in any format. Each 64KB ‘chunk’ of payload is billed as 1 request. For example, a single API call with a 256KB payload will be billed as four requests.
- Messages can be sent, received or deleted in batches of up to 10 messages or 256KB. Batches cost the same amount as single messages, meaning SQS can be even more cost effective for customers that use batching.
On the other hand, IronMQ provides the following key features:
- Instant High Availability- Runs on top cloud infrastructures and uses multiple high-availability data centers. Uses reliable datastores for message durability and persistence.
- Easy to Use- IronMQ is super easy to use. Simply connect directly to the API endpoints and you're ready to create and use queues. There are also client libraries available in any language you want – Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, .NET, Go, Node.JS, and more
- Scalable / High Performance- Built using high-performance languages designed for concurrency and runs on industrial-strength clouds. Push messages and stream data at will without worrying about memory limits or adding more servers.
"Easy to use, reliable" is the primary reason why developers consider Amazon SQS over the competitors, whereas "Great Support" was stated as the key factor in picking IronMQ.
Medium, Lyft, and Coursera are some of the popular companies that use Amazon SQS, whereas IronMQ is used by HotelTonight, Coinbase, and Hubble. Amazon SQS has a broader approval, being mentioned in 384 company stacks & 103 developers stacks; compared to IronMQ, which is listed in 9 company stacks and 5 developer stacks.
What is Amazon SQS?
What is IronMQ?
Want advice about which of these to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Why do developers choose Amazon SQS?
Why do developers choose IronMQ?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Amazon SQS?
What are the cons of using IronMQ?
What companies use IronMQ?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Amazon SQS?
What tools integrate with IronMQ?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
IronMQI deploy to Heroku. However, my applications require full linux applications that cannot be deployed to Heroku. I deploy them to Rackspace.
Then Heroku and Rackspace communicate over IronMQ. Problem solved.
Amazon SQSIn 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.
Amazon SQSThis 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.
Amazon SQSSQS 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.
Amazon SQSPrimary message queue. Enqueueing operations revert to a local file-system-based queue when SQS is unavailable.
Amazon SQSI can't afford to lose data if Dynamo throttles my writes, so everything goes into a message queue first.
IronMQProcess queues