Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) vs. Azure Queue Storage

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

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• Positive impact - time allocation towards different features
• Negative impact - too many resources dedicated towards debugging
• Positive impact - less manual labor during testing

Incentivized