Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) vs. Confluent

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

If you have a need to stream data, real time or segmented structured data then Confluent is a great platform to do so with. You won't run into packet transfer size limitations that other platforms have. Flexibility in on-prem, cloud, and managed cloud offerings makes it very flexible no matter how you choose to implement.

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

• Products work great.
• Training is available.
• Customer support is good.

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

• Cloud based Azure platform features for Confluent lacks behind AWS And GCP

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 support from the Confluent platform is great and satisfying. We have been working with Confluent for more than a year now. They sent out resident architects to help us set up Confluent cluster on our cloud and help us troubleshoot problems we have encountered. Overall, it has been a great experience working with the Confluent Platform.

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

For our use case it was very important that the technology we were working with fit into our Azure architecture, and met our data processing size requirements to stream data within certain SLAs. Confluent more than met our performance requirements and compared to the others scale options and cost to run it was more than financially viable as a platform solution to our global operations.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• It enables us to develop event driven application.
• It increases our ability to handle streaming data.
• It reduces latency of communication.

Incentivized