Amazon MQ Reviews

I have some experience working with Amazon MQ.

Since it's similar to ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ, they have the same features and functionalities that I appreciate the most.

Since we utilize AWS, it's easy to integrate Amazon MQ and work with other third-party software, as they have standard communications via API or native language.

Amazon MQ needs to have data collected on performance to analyze trends for improvement. Additionally, some tools can suggest how to improve performance in terms of speed, time, and processing, which is the utilization portion that can be utilized using those services.

[Full sentence answer to 'For how long have I used the solution?' from the text.]

Monitoring capabilities are not yet fully developed, since it's a message broker service, so it focuses more on the health of Apache.

With regards to technical support from Amazon, they are actively responding to queries and concerns. I would rate them a seven because there's an area for improvement in the support they provide on certain services.

Positive

The price for Amazon MQ is comparable to services that ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ provide, though I don't know the exact pricing. Since there's a less expensive option, I think it is comparable in the message queuing that AWS will provide. Users can utilize AWS MQ as a default option which is free to use in AWS, but in terms of per transaction and enterprise grade implementation, they have similarities, though I don't have any view on that.

I have experience with on-premise setups using ActiveMQ and RabbitMQ, but with regards to AWS, I use it via cloud only.

There's a free tier with Amazon MQ based on their website, which is a six-month free trial of a single instance, allowing per month usage of either ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ, five gig of Amazon EFS storage, and for ActiveMQ, it's 20 gig of Amazon EBS storage for RabbitMQ.

I did not purchase Amazon MQ through AWS Marketplace.

Amazon MQ has published information about having 650 hours of free trial usage. This can be found via the AWS website by searching for AWS MQ.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Amazon MQ an eight out of ten.

We have an application. Our company has some insurance products and hundreds of thousands of users. The software we have is for people's membership and insurance. When we need to send out a message using Amazon MQ, it uses its endpoints to send us those messages. Our company uses managed software.

Amazon MQ is managed by AWS and is easy to use. Anyone with a computer background can easily use the solution.

The solution needs improvement in the back end and security.

I have been using Amazon MQ for a couple of years.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

We have enterprise support, and the technical support is pretty good. If we have any questions or something doesn't work, the support team gets back to us in minutes. We have an account manager assigned to our team. We can message him, and he will get back to us and help us with anything we need.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We primarily use a point-to-point messaging pattern for our customers. We had to modify Amazon MQ because our firewalls can sometimes block it. We haven't faced any issues with the solution's maintenance and monitoring. I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

My company is a software or solution provider. We design the solution to meet the requirements of our clients. Each client needs Amazon or Azure tools, so we go with the requirements of our client base. Most of the clients in our region use the tool. The tool is used for website hosting and storage purposes.

Amazon MQ is a secure solution.

For end users, I want the tool to be made cheaper.

I have two years of experience with Amazon MQ. My company functions as an Amazon implementer.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten.

My clients are mostly enterprise-sized businesses.

The solution's technical support is good. The tool offers real-time support. I rate the technical support an eight and a half out of ten.

Positive

If you are a technical person who already uses Google Cloud or any other cloud service, you can deploy your website and host easily with Amazon MQ. If you face any difficulty in the area of web hosting, you can easily go to YouTube and another search engine, and you can resolve your questions or queries anytime.

The solution is deployed using Amazon's cloud services.

When it comes to the deployment capacity, our company needs to check a lot of things, especially security features, and plugins. The tool can be deployed in a few hours.

As a client or as an end user, I would say that Google Cloud Storage or Google Cloud are cheaper than Amazon MQ.

From the marketing point of view, the tool's pricing area needs to be looked into.

Amazon MQ isn't a cheap tool. Google Cloud offers cheaply priced tools. After Google Cloud, Azure offers cheaply priced tools.

In terms of Amazon MQ's scalability and throughput capabilities, the tool is mostly accessible, stable, and competent with similar platforms.

The tool's web hosting capacity and security features are good.

The impact of the solution on process efficiencies depends on the clients. If the traffic is too high for a client, I suggest they go with Azure as it is more scalable and stable, while the support is good.

I recommend Azure over Amazon MQ.

Starting with Amazon MQ can be a bit tricky, but I know that the product is mature and the support is very good. The integration capabilities of Amazon MQ are flexible.

I am not using AI with the tool.

I would not recommend Amazon MQ to others. As a service provider, my company usually recommends cheaply priced and reliable solutions to our customers. Azure is one most reliable tool that comes at a good price point. Even Google Cloud is a super solution but for launching Google Cloud, support is not available, so one needs to do it with tutorials which are not completely available in YouTube.

I rate the tool a seven and a half out of ten.

We are using Amazon MQ for our AI model. It's used for notifications and other services. We have an application for which Amazon MQ acts as a broker.

For our reporting purposes, we are using Power BI. We are more focused on Power BI for reporting and data. We are also using AWS backup services.

We have found Amazon MQ to provide scalability, robustness, and security. The use of Amazon MQ in our server architecture allows us not to halt the user during a transaction. We send the data to the message queue, which processes it and sends the notification. For reporting, we effectively use Power BI.

The message queue requires an improvement in the message template MQ link. If Amazon provided a templating engine, it would be great.

We have been using Amazon MQ for five to ten years.

The service is good, however, community challenges arise with the templating where we can scale.

Amazon MQ provides scalability.

We are considering a switch to RabbitMQ.

We take our managed matrices and messages and add them to Amazon MQ. We have consumer services that pick out from these queues and combat these queues before pushing to another endpoint or a new queue, where some visualizations are performed.

Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution.

Amazon MQ is a very stable solution.

Amazon MQ is a very scalable solution.

I rate the solution ten out of ten for scalability.

Most of the technical support for Amazon comes from the community or drop-in questions on Stack Overflow. You will find solutions to most of the issues online, given that it has been asked or there's an article on it. The documentation is very, very good. With Amazon, most issues come from improper setup and permission issues. You have to be well-versed with the permissions and the networking.

Positive

It is very easy to install Amazon MQ. Amazon provides you with a URL where you can either send or retrieve messages.

Depending on your use cases, Amazon MQ can be cheap or expensive.

For messaging, we use SQL queues, not MQ queues. When a request comes into our front-end application, we put this message into a queue. The right service picks up a particular message from the queue, performs the operation, and calls the next service.

The next service taking that message can either perform services on the message or attach it to a new queue from multiple services. It's as if we have multiple services working hand-in-hand, but we use a queue system to either get or send messages.

I only use Amazon MQ for one specific thing. I wouldn't say I've used it extensively to know what is more beneficial. We use the solution to pick out matrices from a particular queue, process the queue, and process the messages they push into something else. It was really fast.

One of the good things I love about the solution is that you hardly get two services working on one message. When a subscriber to a queue consumes their message, it's in the queue at a particular moment. All the messages are only visible to the particular subscriber. Suppose ten services are trying to get a message from the queue. Out of the ten, if five pick the same messages, you will get duplicate transactions and weird errors. It does a very good job abstracting that for you, so you don't have to write the logic.

Amazon MQ has done all that it was supposed to do. Most of the issues boil down to a skill or a pricing issue.

Overall, I rate Amazon MQ ten out of ten.

We use Amazon MQ for integration systems in different domains. It allows us to engage talks and send the agents for other system processes. We also use it for streaming capacities.

Amazon MQ is important for being collaborative, allowing for centralized information. It permits engaging talks and solutions.

In community support, especially with distributed systems and integration, there is a need for better system organization. Improving the concept of exchange messages between systems would be beneficial.

We have used Amazon MQ for three years.

We don't have problems with using Amazon MQ and exchange with ActiveMQ.

On a scale of one to ten, the scalability of Amazon MQ is rated at eight.

We receive support from AWS, and when needed, they always attend to us.

Positive

For me, it is easy to choose the setup.

My role is a solution architect. I don't handle the exact deployment activities as it is done by another responsible area.

Amazon MQ is more expensive when used from the Sao Paulo region. We are considering changing to Virginia for better costs.

We are studying Confluent Kafka for its streaming capacities.

I recommend checking out Amazon MQ. Normally, I recommend others to review their queue systems.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I'm an administrator and my primary use case for Amazon MQ is as an integration layer between applications. I configure the brokers, queues, and users. 

The Amazon MQ feature I value the most is the high availability. 

I would like to see Amazon MQ introduce other messaging queues like IBM MQ with an easily configured plugin.

I would also like to see Amazon MQ offer only one IP instead of two. Right now, they give you two IP addresses, a primary and a failover. If the primary goes down, then you need to switch to the failover load. If you could just use one IP, when the failover happens, you would not need to do any quality changes. 

I have more than a year of experience with Amazon MQ. 

So far, Amazon MQ has been stable for us. 

Amazon MQ scales automatically. We have not had any issues with the solution in this regard. We currently have 10 clients using the solution. 

The initial Amazon MQ setup is very easy both when you do it on your own or use the self-managed instance. 

Our Amazon MQ deployment was done in-house. If I were to rate the setup based on how easy and pleasant it was for us, one being the worst and five being the best, I would give the solution a four. 

Amazon MQ is a good solution for small and medium-sized enterprises. It's open-source software, which means it's cheaper than its competitors. 

On a scale of one to 10, one being the best and 10 being the worst, I would give Amazon MQ an eight for overall performance. 

The tool's most valuable feature is its managed service aspect. It's simple to implement and use. It requires minimal effort to maintain business operations.

The product should improve its monitoring capabilities. It needs to improve the pricing also.

I have been using the product for two years. 

I rate the solution's stability a seven out of ten. 

Amazon MQ's scalability hasn't significantly supported our messaging needs because we don't deal with many messages. Our operations are well-suited to a mid-sized machine and don't require horizontal scaling. It operates consistently, running in tens of environments.

The solution's support is good.

Positive

The solution is a simple managed service from Amazon. Hence, we use it. 

I rate the tool's ease of deployment a ten out of ten. It can be completed in seconds since we use Terraform. You would need two to five resources to deploy it. 

The solution's deployment can be completed in-house. 

The security features primarily rely on regular authentication practices, meeting standard industrial norms. There's nothing special about it. I would recommend it for its simplicity in implementation, zero maintenance requirements, and overall stability. I would rate Amazon MQ as a seven on a scale of one to ten.