Amazon Simple Queue Service (SQS) vs. IBM Cloud Messages for RabbitMQ

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

• 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

• 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

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

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

• 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