CloudAMQP vs Kafka

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!


+ 1

+ 1
Add tool

CloudAMQP vs Kafka: What are the differences?

Developers describe CloudAMQP as "RabbitMQ as a Service". Fully managed, highly available RabbitMQ servers and clusters, on all major compute platforms. On the other hand, Kafka is detailed as "Distributed, fault tolerant, high throughput pub-sub messaging system". Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

CloudAMQP and Kafka belong to "Message Queue" category of the tech stack.

Some of the features offered by CloudAMQP are:

  • 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.

On the other hand, Kafka provides the following key features:

  • 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)

"Some of the best customer support you'll ever find" is the top reason why over 3 developers like CloudAMQP, while over 95 developers mention "High-throughput" as the leading cause for choosing Kafka.

Kafka is an open source tool with 12.7K GitHub stars and 6.81K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Kafka's open source repository on GitHub.

According to the StackShare community, Kafka has a broader approval, being mentioned in 509 company stacks & 470 developers stacks; compared to CloudAMQP, which is listed in 12 company stacks and 5 developer stacks.

Advice on CloudAMQP and Kafka
Needs advice

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.

See more
Replies (4)
Maheedhar Aluri

Kafka is an Enterprise Messaging Framework whereas Redis is an Enterprise Cache Broker, in-memory database and high performance database.Both are having their own advantages, but they are different in usage and implementation. Now if you are creating microservices check the user consumption volumes, its generating logs, scalability, systems to be integrated and so on. I feel for your scenario initially you can go with KAFKA bu as the throughput, consumption and other factors are scaling then gradually you can add Redis accordingly.

See more
Angular 2

I first recommend that you choose Angular over AngularJS if you are starting something new. AngularJs is no longer getting enhancements, but perhaps you meant Angular. Regarding microservices, I recommend considering microservices when you have different development teams for each service that may want to use different programming languages and backend data stores. If it is all the same team, same code language, and same data store I would not use microservices. I might use a message queue, in which case RabbitMQ is a good one. But you may also be able to simply write your own in which you write a record in a table in MSSQL and one of your services reads the record from the table and processes it. The most challenging part of doing it yourself is writing a service that does a good job of reading the queue without reading the same message multiple times or missing a message; and that is where RabbitMQ can help.

See more
Amit Mor
Software Architect at Payoneer · | 3 upvotes · 201.2K views

I think something is missing here and you should consider answering it to yourself. You are building a couple of services. Why are you considering event-sourcing architecture using Message Brokers such as the above? Won't a simple REST service based arch suffice? Read about CQRS and the problems it entails (state vs command impedance for example). Do you need Pub/Sub or Push/Pull? Is queuing of messages enough or would you need querying or filtering of messages before consumption? Also, someone would have to manage these brokers (unless using managed, cloud provider based solution), automate their deployment, someone would need to take care of backups, clustering if needed, disaster recovery, etc. I have a good past experience in terms of manageability/devops of the above options with Kafka and Redis, not so much with RabbitMQ. Both are very performant. But also note that Redis is not a pure message broker (at time of writing) but more of a general purpose in-memory key-value store. Kafka nowadays is much more than a distributed message broker. Long story short. In my taste, you should go with a minialistic approach and try to avoid either of them if you can, especially if your architecture does not fall nicely into event sourcing. If not I'd examine Kafka. If you need more capabilities than I'd consider Redis and use it for all sorts of other things such as a cache.

See more

We found that the CNCF landscape is a good advisor when working going into the cloud / microservices space: When choosing a technology one important criteria to me is if it is cloud native or not. Neither Redis, RabbitMQ nor Kafka is cloud native. The try to adapt but will be replaced eventually with technologies that are cloud native.

We have gone with NATS and have never looked back. We haven't spend a single minute on server maintainance in the last year and the setup of a cluster is way too easy. With the new features NATS incorporates now (and the ones still on the roadmap) it is already and will be sooo much mure than Redis, RabbitMQ and Kafka are. It can replace service discovery, load balancing, global multiclusters and failover, etc, etc.

Your thought might be: But I don't need all of that! Well, at the same time it is much more leightweight than Redis, RabbitMQ and especially Kafka.

See more
Pramod Nikam
Co Founder at Usability Designs · | 2 upvotes · 137.4K views
Needs advice
Apache Thrift

I am looking into IoT World Solution where we have MQTT Broker. This MQTT Broker Sits in one of the Data Center. We are doing a lot of Alert and Alarm related processing on that Data, Currently, we are looking into Solution which can do distributed persistence of log/alert primarily on remote Disk.

Our primary need is to use lightweight where operational complexity and maintenance costs can be significantly reduced. We want to do it on-premise so we are not considering cloud solutions.

We looked into the following alternatives:

Apache Kafka - Great choice but operation and maintenance wise very complex. Rabbit MQ - High availability is the issue, Apache Pulsar - Operational Complexity. NATS - Absence of persistence. Akka Streams - Big learning curve and operational streams.

So we are looking into a lightweight library that can do distributed persistence preferably with publisher and subscriber model. Preferable on JVM stack.

See more
Replies (1)
Naresh Kancharla
Staff Engineer at Nutanix · | 4 upvotes · 134.7K views

Kafka is best fit here. Below are the advantages with Kafka ACLs (Security), Schema (protobuf), Scale, Consumer driven and No single point of failure.

Operational complexity is manageable with open source monitoring tools.

See more
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?

See more
Replies (4)
Tarun Batra
Back End Developer at instabox · | 7 upvotes · 160.2K views

RabbitMQ is great for queuing and retrying. You can send the requests to your backend which will further queue these requests in RabbitMQ (or Kafka, too). The consumer on the other end can take care of processing . For a detailed analysis, check this blog about choosing between Kafka and RabbitMQ.

See more
Trevor Rydalch
Software Engineer at · | 6 upvotes · 160.1K views

Well, first off, it's good practice to do as little non-UI work on the foreground thread as possible, regardless of whether the requests take a long time. You don't want the UI thread blocked.

This sounds like a good use case for RabbitMQ. Primarily because you don't need each message processed by more than one consumer. If you wanted to process a single message more than once (say for different purposes), then Apache Kafka would be a much better fit as you can have multiple consumer groups consuming from the same topics independently.

Have your API publish messages containing the data necessary for the third-party request to a Rabbit queue and have consumers reading off there. If it fails, you can either retry immediately, or publish to a deadletter queue where you can reprocess them whenever you want (shovel them back into the regular queue).

See more

In my opinion RabbitMQ fits better in your case because you don’t have order in queue. You can process your messages in any order. You don’t need to store the data what you sent. Kafka is a persistent storage like the blockchain. RabbitMQ is a message broker. Kafka is not a good solution for the system with confirmations of the messages delivery.

See more
Guillaume Maka
Full Stack Web Developer · | 2 upvotes · 159.7K views

As far as I understand, Kafka is a like a persisted event state manager where you can plugin various source of data and transform/query them as event via a stream API. Regarding your use case I will consider using RabbitMQ if your intent is to implement service inter-communication kind of thing. RabbitMQ is a good choice for one-one publisher/subscriber (or consumer) and I think you can also have multiple consumers by configuring a fanout exchange. RabbitMQ provide also message retries, message cancellation, durable queue, message requeue, message ACK....

See more
Decisions about CloudAMQP and Kafka
Kirill Mikhailov

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.

See more
Mickael Alliel
DevOps Engineer at Rookout · | 4 upvotes · 174.2K views

In addition to being a lot cheaper, Google Cloud Pub/Sub allowed us to not worry about maintaining any more infrastructure that needed.

We moved from a self-hosted RabbitMQ over to CloudAMQP and decided that since we use GCP anyway, why not try their managed PubSub?

It is one of the better decisions that we made, and we can just focus about building more important stuff!

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using Private StackShare. Sign up for Private StackShare.
Learn More
Pros of CloudAMQP
Pros of Kafka
  • 4
    Some of the best customer support you'll ever find
  • 3
    Easy to provision
  • 120
  • 114
  • 86
  • 79
  • 64
  • 35
  • 18
  • 14
    Open source
  • 10
    Written in Scala and java. Runs on JVM
  • 6
    Message broker + Streaming system
  • 4
    Avro schema integration
  • 2
    Suport Multiple clients
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
    Partioned, replayable log
  • 1
  • 1
    Extremely good parallelism constructs
  • 1
    Simple publisher / multi-subscriber model
  • 1

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of CloudAMQP
Cons of Kafka
    Be the first to leave a con
    • 27
      Non-Java clients are second-class citizens
    • 26
      Needs Zookeeper
    • 7
      Operational difficulties
    • 2
      Terrible Packaging

    Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

    - No public GitHub repository available -

    What is CloudAMQP?

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

    What is Kafka?

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

    Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

    What companies use CloudAMQP?
    What companies use Kafka?
    See which teams inside your own company are using CloudAMQP or Kafka.
    Sign up for Private StackShareLearn More

    Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

    What tools integrate with CloudAMQP?
    What tools integrate with Kafka?

    Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

    Blog Posts

    Mar 24 2021 at 12:57PM


    Jun 24 2020 at 4:42PM


    Jan 7 2020 at 5:09PM

    Ably Realtime

    What are some alternatives to CloudAMQP and Kafka?
    RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.
    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
    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.
    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.
    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.
    See all alternatives