No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Amazon SQS vs EMQX comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon SQS
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
EMQX
Ranking in Message Queue (MQ) Software
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
IoT Connectivity (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Message Queue (MQ) Software category, the mindshare of Amazon SQS is 6.5%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of EMQX is 2.8%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Message Queue (MQ) Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Amazon SQS6.5%
EMQX2.8%
Other90.7%
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Roberto Costa - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Data & AI Engineer at Imprint
Facilitates seamless queue creation and management for efficient application decoupling
If you need a messaging service to help decouple your application, Amazon SQS would be a smart choice because it's easy to use and very easy to manage Amazon SQS is a simple service to use. If we compare with other solutions such as RabbitMQ for messaging, Amazon SQS is easier to use and easier…
AP
Senior Software Engineer
Connected millions of iot devices and manage real time pub sub control and flexible access rules
When going with the open-source EMQX version, there are limitations provided. For example, the webhooks use case cannot be scaled to as large a scale compared to the enterprise edition of EMQX. The open-source version helps a great deal with work in the company. The way this resource helps nurture the IoT device paradigm is greatly helpful for developers working newly on this system because the onboarding part of EMQX is very easy and developer-friendly. Someone who wants to dive into it can easily implement and make the system robust based on the technologies it provides. EMQX provides API connections for applications. HTTP calls can be made to EMQX to get updates from the client. Those connections should be made asynchronously. The webhook part handles this well, but when it comes to the API part, when the load and payload of the MQTT topics and messages are very heavy, sometimes unknown errors occur, and logs and errors must be found. When a specific log session is created for that client, the readability of those logs is not good. The platform itself does not need improvement, but when it comes to developer-friendly implementations of EMQX, there are some pain points that need attention. The visibility of logs, error logs, and information logs inside the built-in monitoring needs work because developers, when they implement code or any kind of specific tools, need proper control over the system. Without that control, there is no point in implementing anything at all. The monitoring part needs work. When it comes to the flow chart of how different clients are connected with different devices, there is a feature inside EMQX called Flow. When that Flow is in place, clients (devices) should be controllable from that Flow itself. These are the most important improvements that need to be addressed.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"I am able to find out what's going on very easily."
"We use Amazon SQS for notifying, queuing servers, queuing messages, and notifying the people for alerting systems."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to decouple components, which is beneficial because our architecture usually has different components and the communication aspect of components is crucial."
"If we compare with other solutions such as RabbitMQ for messaging, Amazon SQS is easier to use and easier to create the queue."
"All Amazon Web Services resources are easy to configure."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"Amazon SQS provides faster search through indexing via OpenSearch."
"The outcomes from using EMQX are very cost-saving for us because we previously used the MQTT Mosquitto broker, and when I compare Mosquitto with EMQX, EMQX is far better than Mosquitto and other protocols."
"The best features EMQX offers in my experience are that it can send messages for a large number of customers with a very high message-per-second rate while consuming low resources."
"EMQX is a solid open-source project for making IoT devices connect anywhere in the world."
"EMQX will boost your product sampling rate and transmission so that you can achieve a large amount of data without any loss while transmitting through the internet."
 

Cons

"Packages sometimes have delays in dropping, indicating reliability issues."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
"Support could be improved."
"Sending or receiving messages takes some time, and it could be quicker."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing, especially for the FIFO model."
"The retention period for messages could be improved. Currently, messages are retained for four or seven days."
"For Amazon SQS, in particular, I think AWS Management Console has shortcomings. AWS Management Console should be a better pluggable option to help users with some integrations."
"The price is on the high end and has room for improvement."
"To improve EMQX, I think it should reduce costs, save time when sending messages, and improve reliability."
"EMQX is a good MQTT broker but the historian is simple."
"If you want to improve further, the SSL certificate and TLS certificate have overhead in serverless EMQX."
"The visibility of logs, error logs, and information logs inside the built-in monitoring needs work because developers, when they implement code or any kind of specific tools, need proper control over the system."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the tool's pricing a nine out of ten."
"It's quite expensive."
"SQS's pricing is very good - I would rate it nine out of ten."
"Amazon SQS is quite expensive and is at the highest price point compared to other solutions."
"Amazon SQS offers a generous free tier, beyond which it remains very cost-effective. The cost per million messages is less than a dollar, making it an economical choice."
"The pricing model is pay-as-you-use. It depends on your usage and configuration."
"Amazon SQS is moderately priced."
"Amazon SQS is more affordable compared to other solutions."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Legal Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Media Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise14
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon SQS?
There is nothing I can remember that I would want as new features for Amazon SQS.
What is your primary use case for Amazon SQS?
If you need a messaging service to help decouple your application, Amazon SQS would be a smart choice because it's easy to use and very easy to manage.
What advice do you have for others considering Amazon SQS?
I would recommend Amazon SQS to other people. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 10.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

EMS, NASA, BMW, Capital One
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon SQS vs. EMQX and other solutions. Updated: May 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.