Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache Kafka vs IBM MQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.0
Apache Kafka's ROI benefits include cost savings, quick data insights, increased productivity, and efficient high-traffic data management.
Sentiment score
7.1
Organizations find IBM MQ reliable and cost-effective, enhancing scalability and performance while generating revenue without increasing costs.
It's a product which integrates the external systems with internal systems or among the systems themselves, making it an essential technology component required to integrate multiple systems.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.8
Apache Kafka's support stems largely from an open-source community, with varied satisfaction in third-party and enterprise assistance.
Sentiment score
7.0
Users have mixed experiences with IBM MQ support, highlighting both efficiency and delays, with documentation helping reduce direct support needs.
The Apache community provides support for the open-source version.
There is plenty of community support available online.
We cannot hold on to the project for a long time just to wait for IBM to fix the issues.
The response time for IBM MQ support could be better because when we are using IBM MQ and something goes wrong, support is required as the resource availability of the IBM product is very limited.
With containerized flavors of these products, we are having a tough time dealing with PMRs because the versions are new to IBM.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Apache Kafka's scalability is a major strength, allowing easy horizontal and vertical scaling to meet diverse use case demands.
Sentiment score
7.5
IBM MQ provides reliable scalability and flexibility, efficiently handling large workloads across various environments with improved cloud support.
Customers have not faced issues with user growth or data streaming needs.
IBM MQ handles many thousands of messages in a second, indicating good scalability.
In our environment, we do not have horizontal scaling for IBM MQ, but as demand increases, we would just vertically scale it.
Performance-wise, it is scalable, and other features such as DR, DC, replication, and active passive mode are complex to configure, but it remains scalable.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
Apache Kafka is praised for its resilience and reliability, despite minor configuration challenges and performance under high data volumes.
Sentiment score
8.1
IBM MQ is praised for its stability, reliability, and ability to handle high transaction volumes with minimal downtime.
Apache Kafka is stable.
We have never had any downtime or crashes since it's been running.
The transaction is always guaranteed with IBM MQ, which is the main reason I have been working with it for fifteen years while dealing with financial transactions or messages.
 

Room For Improvement

Apache Kafka needs UI improvements, simplified deployment, reduce ZooKeeper dependency, enhance documentation, client libraries, performance, and advanced features.
IBM MQ needs GUI improvements, better cloud integration, modern protocol support, enhanced security, and more competitive pricing.
The performance angle is critical, and while it works in milliseconds, the goal is to move towards microseconds.
We are always trying to find the best configs, which is a challenge.
A more user-friendly interface and better management consoles with improved documentation could be beneficial.
Having a graphical user interface would improve usability.
The pricing model for IBM MQ could be more flexible for clients.
Support can be better because sometimes we need explanations for some behaviors of the product, and it's not easy to reach the proper person in IBM support.
 

Setup Cost

Apache Kafka is open-source, but additional provider services can be costly, varying by needs and exceeding 100,000 euros annually.
IBM MQ often has high costs, but its reliability and functionality can justify the price for some organizations.
The open-source version of Apache Kafka results in minimal costs, mainly linked to accessing documentation and limited support.
Its pricing is reasonable.
It's possible to get some training, but the cost of this learning is expensive.
The price of IBM MQ is definitely on the higher side.
I am not exactly sure about the licensing cost compared to similar products, but I assume it is affordable since we continue to use it, and it is also used by our customers.
 

Valuable Features

Apache Kafka excels in real-time data streaming, scalability, integration, resilience, and handling large volumes with robust message retention.
IBM MQ provides reliable, secure message delivery with scalability and stability, essential for high transaction volumes in complex environments.
Apache Kafka is effective when dealing with large volumes of data flowing at high speeds, requiring real-time processing.
It allows the use of data in motion, allowing data to propagate from one source to another while it is in motion.
These are financial transactions, so we do not want to lose the message at any cost.
There is a saying that for the last 30 years IBM MQ has never been hacked.
It's time-tested, very stable, highly resilient, and has all the features to troubleshoot even if something goes wrong.
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache Kafka
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
87
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (8th)
IBM MQ
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
169
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (1st), Message Queue (MQ) Software (1st), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

Apache Kafka and IBM MQ aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Apache Kafka is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 2.8%, up 1.9% compared to last year.
IBM MQ, on the other hand, focuses on Message Queue (MQ) Software, holds 26.2% mindshare, up 20.6% since last year.
Streaming Analytics
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Q&A Highlights

NC
Sep 04, 2023
 

Featured Reviews

Snehasish Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Data streaming transforms real-time data movement with impressive scalability
I worked with Apache Kafka for customers in the financial industry and OTT platforms. They use Kafka particularly for data streaming. Companies offering movie and entertainment as a service, similar to Netflix, use Kafka Apache Kafka offers unique data streaming. It allows the use of data in…
Md Al-Amin - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable and secure performance consistently enhances message transfer
IBM MQ is more reliable and secure than other software. There is a saying that for the last 30 years IBM MQ has never been hacked. It is more secure and reliable. Whenever the configuration is done, I do not have to touch it again. It works fine, it is stable, and its communication is to the point and accurate. All performance-related aspects are better. Performance-wise, it is scalable, and other features such as DR, DC, replication, and active passive mode are complex to configure, but it remains scalable. The pricing model for IBM MQ could be more flexible for clients.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

NC
Sep 4, 2023
Sep 4, 2023
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of users. This tool has great scalability with high throughput and a very helpful supportive online community. However, Kafka does not provide control over the message queue, so it is difficult to know wheth...
2 out of 3 answers
Oct 31, 2021
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of users. This tool has great scalability with high throughput and a very helpful supportive online community. However, Kafka does not provide control over the message queue, so it is difficult to know whether messages are being delivered, lost, or duplicated. We would like to see more adapters for connecting to different systems made available. I think this would be a better product if the graphical user interface was easier. The manual calculations needed for this solution can be difficult. If the process was automated, it would be a much better product. IBM MQ has a very strong reputation and is very robust with great stability. This solution is easy to use, simple to configure, and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocols. IBM ensures message delivery. You can track and trace everything. If a message doesn’t arrive at its destination, it will go back to the queue; this ensures no message is ever lost. This is a huge selling point for us. IBM MQ does not handle huge volume very well, though. There are some limitations to the queues. If these limitations could be relaxed, it would be a better product for us. You have to license per application and installation, so scaling up can get very costly very quickly. Conclusion Apache Kafka is a cost-effective solution for high-volume, multi-source data collection. If you are in a high-growth trajectory and if total message accountability and tracking is not a huge issue for you, this solution may work well for you. IBM MQ is a licensed product and can be very expensive, it also does not scale easily, which can be very problematic. IBM MQ requires a definite skillset that not many people have, which can be an issue for some and it affects the fast responsive support of this solution.
GT
Sep 14, 2022
The choice depends on your use case.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
30%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
37%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
What do you like most about Apache Kafka?
Apache Kafka is an open-source solution that can be used for messaging or event processing.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Kafka?
Its pricing is reasonable. It's not always about cost, but about meeting specific needs.
What is MQ software?
Hi As someone with 45+ years of experience in the Transaction and Message Processing world, I have seen many "MQ" solutions that have come into the market place. From my perspective, while each pro...
How does IBM MQ compare with VMware RabbitMQ?
IBM MQ has a great reputation behind it, and this solution is very robust with great stability. It is easy to use, simple to configure and integrates well with our enterprise ecosystem and protocol...
What do you like most about IBM MQ?
The feature I find most effective for ensuring message delivery without loss is the backup threshold. This feature allows for automatic retries of transactional messages within a specified threshold.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
WebSphere MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Uber, Netflix, Activision, Spotify, Slack, Pinterest
Deutsche Bahn, Bon-Ton, WestJet, ARBURG, Northern Territory Government, Tata Steel Europe, Sharp Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache Kafka vs. IBM MQ and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.