Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) vs. Apache Kafka

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon SQS
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Provides the Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS), a managed message queue service which supports the safe decoupling and distribution of different components in a cloud infrastructure and cloud applications.
$0
per GB
Apache Kafka
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Apache Kafka is an open-source stream processing platform developed by the Apache Software Foundation written in Scala and Java. The Kafka event streaming platform is used by thousands of companies for high-performance data pipelines, streaming analytics, data integration, and mission-critical applications.N/A
Pricing
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)Apache Kafka
Editions & Modules
All Data Transfer In
$0.00
per GB
Standard Queue
$0.00000004
per request
FIFO Queue
$0.00000005
per request
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon SQSApache Kafka
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details——
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)Apache Kafka
Considered Both Products
Amazon SQS
Chose Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)
To be blunt: Amazon SQS was the simplest to implement given our requirements. Other services in this space work just as well, and SQS does not have any benefits outside of being the easiest to implement when using an otherwise fully AWS stack. AWS itself even has other …
Chose Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)
Amazon SQS stacks up with the best of them as most of their products do. The only issue comparatively that I’ve had with this service, in particular, is the silently failing messages and then allocation of time to dedicate to debugging when the issue of why a message got stuck …
Apache Kafka
Chose Apache Kafka
- The biggest advantage of using Apache Kafka is that it is cloud agnostic - It handles super high volume, is fault tolerance, high performance
Chose Apache Kafka
I used other messaging/queue solutions that are a lot more basic than Confluent Kafka, as well as another solution that is no longer in the market called Xively, which was bought and "buried" by Google. In comparison, these solutions offer way fewer functionalities and respond …
Top Pros
Top Cons
Best Alternatives
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)Apache Kafka
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 8.4 out of 10
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.0 out of 10
Enterprises
Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka
Score 8.4 out of 10
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)Apache Kafka
Likelihood to Recommend
7.1
(7 ratings)
8.3
(18 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(2 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(2 ratings)
8.4
(4 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS)Apache Kafka
Likelihood to Recommend
Amazon AWS
If you are looking to build something that just requires a simple queue service (as the name implies) this is great for it. You might look elsewhere though if you get into more complicated needs. This is also very well suited if you are already using other services with AWS and intend to fully build whatever you are building in AWS. If you are looking for a mixed environment -- SQS is not for you
Read full review
Apache
Apache Kafka is well-suited for most data-streaming use cases. Amazon Kinesis and Azure EventHubs, unless you have a specific use case where using those cloud PaAS for your data lakes, once set up well, Apache Kafka will take care of everything else in the background. Azure EventHubs, is good for cross-cloud use cases, and Amazon Kinesis - I have no real-world experience. But I believe it is the same.
Read full review
Pros
Amazon AWS
  • It provides an always-available serverless queue for workflows or mission-critical processes.
  • Is extremely low cost and overall costs to our environments have been negligible.
Read full review
Apache
  • Really easy to configure. I've used other message brokers such as RabbitMQ and compared to them, Kafka's configurations are very easy to understand and tweak.
  • Very scalable: easily configured to run on multiple nodes allowing for ease of parallelism (assuming your queues/topics don't have to be consumed in the exact same order the messages were delivered)
  • Not exactly a feature, but I trust Kafka will be around for at least another decade because active development has continued to be strong and there's a lot of financial backing from Confluent and LinkedIn, and probably many other companies who are using it (which, anecdotally, is many).
Read full review
Cons
Amazon AWS
  • Almost all of the functionality has been covered by SQS, but they could improve the throughput time.
  • Also, they could provide built-in Cloud Watch, so that we can easily configure it without any external efforts.
Read full review
Apache
  • Sometimes it becomes difficult to monitor our Kafka deployments. We've been able to overcome it largely using AWS MSK, a managed service for Apache Kafka, but a separate monitoring dashboard would have been great.
  • Simplify the process for local deployment of Kafka and provide a user interface to get visibility into the different topics and the messages being processed.
  • Learning curve around creation of broker and topics could be simplified
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Apache
Kafka is quickly becoming core product of the organization, indeed it is replacing older messaging systems. No better alternatives found yet
Read full review
Usability
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Apache
Apache Kafka is highly recommended to develop loosely coupled, real-time processing applications. Also, Apache Kafka provides property based configuration. Producer, Consumer and broker contain their own separate property file
Read full review
Support Rating
Amazon AWS
Online blogging and documentation for SQS is great. There are many examples of implementing it and if you look hard enough, more than likely there are examples that meet the exact case with which you are working
Read full review
Apache
Support for Apache Kafka (if willing to pay) is available from Confluent that includes the same time that created Kafka at Linkedin so they know this software in and out. Moreover, Apache Kafka is well known and best practices documents and deployment scenarios are easily available for download. For example, from eBay, Linkedin, Uber, and NYTimes.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Amazon AWS
The most comparable products are RabbitMQ, and perhaps ActiveMQ. Until recently, AWS did not offer a managed ActiveMQ product. Running RabbitMQ will never be to my team's competitive advantage; we wanted a managed service.
Read full review
Apache
I used other messaging/queue solutions that are a lot more basic than Confluent Kafka, as well as another solution that is no longer in the market called Xively, which was bought and "buried" by Google. In comparison, these solutions offer way fewer functionalities and respond to other needs.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Amazon AWS
  • Positive impact - time allocation towards different features
  • Negative impact - too many resources dedicated towards debugging
  • Positive impact - less manual labor during testing
Read full review
Apache
  • Positive: Get a quick and reliable pub/sub model implemented - data across components flows easily.
  • Positive: it's scalable so we can develop small and scale for real-world scenarios
  • Negative: it's easy to get into a confusing situation if you are not experienced yet or something strange has happened (rare, but it does). Troubleshooting such situations can take time and effort.
Read full review
ScreenShots