Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) vs. Boomi

While we use AmazonSimple Queue Service (SQS) in our serverless applications, it would be a great option to handle queue management for any internet-connect application. It provides the most benefit in situations where your application or service must maintain mission-critical queue of messages or jobs. If you're already using other AWS services you will find the greatest benefit.

Incentivized

Dell Boomi is well-suited as a middleware to talk between systems. I am a personal fan of Dell's products and I enjoy this service. Dell Boomi is very easy to use, even to the less technically-inclined user. It is less appropriate to use in one system alone, but users would still find it functional in one system alone because it helps manage the system's metadata and allows that system to be integrated with other systems in the future.

Incentivized

• SQS is reliable and fully managed. Our engineers do not have to worry about running RabbitMQ.
• SQS is very inexpensive.
• SQS allows data to be encrypted in transit, which may be required for compliance in some products.
• FIFO queues provide exactly-once processing.

Incentivized

• Pre-built connectors to almost anything which greatly reduce time to release of your integration needs.
• Easy to use development platform with drag&drop features. Non-technical people could build simple integration processes in no time.
• Great user community where you can get quick help if needed. Boomi people hang around there a lot.

Incentivized

• More frequest polling will be expensive
• No detailed monitoring of queues, just current data and regular monitoring is present
• No way to fetch messages back from the queue

• More from a development perspective. It is always difficult to use the properties features. It takes a while to understand how the data/variables can be used across an integration.
• Dell Boomi should also invest more on API Management and not just seen as a ETL,ESB tool.
• Should roll out features more often based on users reviews.

Incentivized

Dell Boomi has provided us with the ability to connect our campus together using our various existing platforms. There are many supported features and have yet to run into something that we cannot do. Its user interface is very intuitive which would allow users to begin developing fairly easily. There is a myriad of resources available

Incentivized

First of all, as a service (cloud service), we don't need to care about server maintenance any more, no worries about incorrect configurations, about down time. Second, for maintaining, we don't need a large team to do it. And of course, using Dell Boomi instead of manual transaction could help us to avoid people mistake while inputting data or doing transactions.

Incentivized

I would rate Dell Boomi as highly performant. We have used it for 4+ years and have not had any major issues with availability or speed. We also have not observed performance degradation when connecting it with other software solutions.

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

Boomi support was responsive and knowledgable, however being a closed cloud service, it doesn't have good community support. We found the learning curve to be steep and there aren't avenues like google, forums, or blogs that provide community driven insight into the product or how to go about designing solutions using the tool

Incentivized

To be blunt: Amazon SQS was the simplest to implement given our requirements. Other services in this space work just as well, and SQS does not have any benefits outside of being the easiest to implement when using an otherwise fully AWS stack. AWS itself even has other solutions that would work just as well, however, SQS had the most reasonable pricing model for our given situation. That will certainly not always be the case, but in several of the instances where we are using it, it just made the most sense.

Incentivized

MuleSoft and Boomi are built on totally different frameworks. Mulesoft is an API-led network whereas Boomi is an ETL middleware approach. In easy words, Mulesoft can connect to several apps and business units, can create and reuse multiple components. Boomi offers only on-premise and on-cloud integration solutions whereas MuleSoft is capable of providing on-premise, on-cloud as well as hybrid solutions. We can say that MuleSoft is much more flexible and offers multiple integration solutions.

• Under the AWS Echo system, it provides great operating power to the application.
• The cost is much less for messages, and it also supports a multi-user option.
• Not for us, but for a larger organization, low throughput might become an issue for a standard queue type.

Incentivized

• ROI was flat. Coding directly in apps we were knowledgable in would have been faster, but maintenance higher.
• It brought good process to the integration team that was new, however I wouldn't say it was a huge gain monetarily. It is a valid path out of many paths for integration, but doesn't rule them all.

Incentivized