- Performance: Amazon SQS is easier to use for beginners while Iron.mq is a developer friendly option and performs more consistently.
- Scalability: Iron.mq is highly scalable because it runs on top of cloud infrastructure and harnesses the power of many data centers with high levels of availability. Likewise, it and scales without the need for users to add and maintain resources on their own.
- Price: Amazon SQS offers a “free tier” that allows customers to make one million SQS requests per month, but applications for use with this option are limited. Beyond the free service, customers only pay for what they use each month instead of for the infrastructure itself. Although there is no upfront cost, this pay per use system means that those that make frequent SQS requests may be faced with costly and unpredictable monthly bills.
- Reviews: Both Iron.mq and Amazon SQS fare well in reviews, although the consensus is that Iron.mq is faster and better for large organizations due to Amazon SQS maximum message size limitations.
IronMQ vs Amazon SQS: Features and Benefits
Iron.mq is a cloud-agnostic messaging queue service that streamlines data management and event flow within an application by providing a reliable method of communication between services and components. It is highly scalable and allows developers to focus on other aspects of their work instead of spending their time managing servers or building out and maintaining complex messaging infrastructure.
Amazon SQS (Simple Queue Service) is a distributed message queuing service that was first brought to fruition in 2004. It is a fully managed service that allows developers to integrate and decouple distributed software systems and related components without the need to purchase, install and configure messaging specific software.
Although both Iron.mq and Amazon SQS are message-oriented middleware using the SaaS model, the differences between the two largely lie within their approach to sending, storing, and distributing messages. The most notable factor perhaps being the more limited language capabilities of Amazon SQS. While the service supports several different types of coding languages, including the popular Python, Java and Ruby; Iron.mq supports far more. Likewise, the Amazon SQS service (particularly when using the free tier) is limited in its support of applications whereas Iron.mq does not have these restrictions. Another notable difference is the lack of a dashboard for Amazon SQS along with multi-cloud capability and reporting and analytics. The two message queueing services also use different authentication methods with Iron.mq making use of tokens and Amazon SQS prefers AWS IAM.
As for similarities, both services offer first-in first-out, one-time delivery, back up, unlimited queues and MQ as a service. Additionally, both can adequately perform with few errors although Iron.mq is notably more seamless when it comes to functionality and scalability.
IronMQ vs. Amazon SQS: Pricing
Those who opt to use Amazon SQS often make the decision initially based on price. Users can begin with a “free tier” that allows them to send up to one million messages per month. They quickly discover that the downfall to the free service is its limited application use which prompts them to upgrade to the “pay per use” model. With this option, users only pay for the messages that they send and there is no start-up cost. Although this sounds alluring, it can be difficult for those with a tight budget to estimate the monthly cost of the service in advance. Iron.mq, on the otherhand, does not offer a free version and costs $24.99 but the price is discounted when users pay annually. If you are unsure, if the service is right for you, they do offer a free trial before using the paid service.
Iron.io Serverless Tools
Speak to us to learn how IronMQ is an essential product for your application to become cloud elastic.
IronMQ vs Amazon SQS: Reviews
When it comes to real customer reviews of the two services, both fare well with high star ratings on multiple platforms. The key to utilizing these reviews in an effective manner lies in determining whether you identify more with beginners or experienced users. Those who are inexperienced with message queueing services typically find it easier to get started with Amazon SQS because of their user-friendly interface and level of simplicity, although it is worth noting that their customer support for this particular service is lacking. When it comes to skilled developers; however, Iron.mq is the clear winner because of its unique features like reporting and analytics, dashboard and webhook support.
Although Amazon SQS offers a more user-friendly platform for beginners, IronMQ consistently outperforms the Amazon branded messaging queuing service in the areas that truly matter. It is faster, more reliable and preferred by knowledgeable experts in the field.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.