Difference Between RabbitMQ vs SQS
RabbitMQ vs SQS are employed for message queueing applications. SQS and RabbitMQ provide your application with a general place to share the messages, and the sent message is secured till it reaches the destination. It both has the ability to share an enormous volume of data. With the help of SQS, the user can offload if there is an additive task of scaling and activating, at acquired for a low price when there is any highly available message cluster. RabbitMQ acts as a message broker and standards as an instant place for messaging.
Head to Head Comparison Between RabbitMQ vs SQS (Infographics)
Below are the Top 13 comparison between RabbitMQ vs SQS:
Key Differences Between RabbitMQ vs SQS
The significant difference between RabbitMQ and SQS are explained below:
1. Choice of Developers: Developers are confused to choose RabbitMQ or SQS. The reason beyond to choose RabbitMQ is its reliability, compact, user-friendly, low-maintenance, low price of installation, and it is serverless. But some choose to adopt SQS because of its attractive user-interface, durability, easy monitoring and configuration, and rapid working.
2. Difficulty in the configuration: RabbitMQ is hard to configure, and SQS is too complex with cluster configuration and management.
3. Reliability of message queue: SQS is highly reliable when compared to RabbitMQ because of its no additive efforts.
4. Loss of messages in transport
Because of more mobile parts in transformation and configuration, there is a high chance of message evaporation in multiple ways in RabbitMQ. But in SQS, the loss of a message is comparatively low when compared to RabbitMQ.
5. Handling Multiple clients: RabbitMQ provides a standard method and user-friendly way to multiple clients, whereas SQS fails to give it in an instant way of a user-friendly approach.
6. The pattern on message consumption: RabbitMQ follows push as a unique approach, and SQS follows pull as a standard approach at periodic intervals
7. Nservice Bus: Nservice bus is supported in RabbitMQ, whereas in SQS, it is provided by a community-run transport extension
8. Performance of RabbitMQ and SQS: RabbitMQ has a huge number of libraries for different technologies; it is open-source and simple to use. SQS shows high performance because of its sustained scalability and minimum latencies. The message sending method is less judgeable. For a high volume of data transfer, SQS offers cheap services and gives long-time support. It supports both types of data, such as high and low, but it requires a task queue to interact between the transfer. Even though message throughput is low, it gives it the best performance.
9. Limitation of RabbitMQ and SQS
The routing key is restricted to a few subscription models but serves as an essential part of AMQP requirements. The documentation for admin and production is limited and has no interop demo. SQS fails to support multiple customers. If any message is removed from the network, it cannot be restored or retrieved. If the wrong message is also processed, we cannot stop that process. It fails to support multiple clients in the same queue.
RabbitMQ vs SQS Comparison Table
Given are the comparison between RabbitMQ vs SQS:
| Basis of Comparison | RabbitMQ | SQS |
| Definition | RabbitMQ acts as a message broker tool and available as a transitional queueing system. | Amazon Simple Queuing Service is abbreviated as SQS, which is an intermediate message queue application where an enormous volume of data is transacted. |
| Robust | RabbitMQ is robust. It delivers instantly to the consumers once the request is raised instead of waiting for a user to pull. | It is an easy, simple and reliable messaging system. |
| Availability | RabbitMQ has high availability according to the user requirement as it requires some special charges. | SQS comes with a high availability package as a free service. |
| Message pattern | RabbitMQ supports a wide range of messaging sequences such as one to one, one to multiple nodes, multiple to multiple locations, complicated routing and Remote procedure call. | SQS provides a dual way message pattern and can be requested using a notification service via amazon. |
| Durability | RabbitMQ offers transient messaging and does not lose any data in the message queue. It gives high durability. It can be configured accordingly if there is crash recovery. | To ensure high durability and security, SQS saves the data on multiple servers. |
| Message ordering | According to the configuration, only one message will be received at one time. If there is any fault, all are redirected. | The standard message queuing offers single to single delivery and also supports the instant message process. |
| Consistent | RabbitMQ doesn’t assure correct one to one delivery. But more than one delivery is possible if the initial message sent is failed or if the client fails to acknowledge the first message. | Ensuring consistency in SQS is a difficult task because it doesn’t have the same message received by the same client multiple times. It is not possible to deliver multiple messages to multiple clients at multiple times. |
| Support | It offers high community support. | It is apparently improving in recent days. |
| Feature comparison | RabbitMQ is developed by AMQP, which allows interoperation between many vendors on many platforms. It is developed by Erlang, and it supports many languages other than SQS. | SQS is developed by Amazon and supports many programming languages such as Java, JavaScript, Python, and Ruby. |
| Compliance | RabbitMQ is not probable to register as a HIPPA client. It is done by encryption methods by using secured channels. | SQS is a HIPPA client, which is beneficial in the health care industry. |
| Message acknowledgement | It is simple and configurable. | It is a timeout process. If it takes any additive time, it needs acknowledgement that the message is in a processing state. |
| Advantages | Mirroring queues to reduce the failure of hardware. It is traceable for unbroken troubleshooting. It is easy to set up. | It offers low latency and prefers easy methods to solve the problem. |
| Cost of Deployment | RabbitMQ is purchased on higher volumes for the lower rate. | SQS is used in the base of pay per use option. So it is reliable to adapt. |
Conclusion
There are multiple clients who choose to prefer SQS and RabbitMQ. Such as MongoDB, localstack, Architect, Apache NiFI, Cloudcraft, Buddy, Datadog, StackStorm, SignalFx, and Timescale DB. The user requirement chooses a suitable message queue to achieve high performance and reliability in the network.
Recommended Articles
This is a guide to RabbitMQ vs SQS. Here we discuss the introduction to RabbitMQ vs SQS, key differences with infographics, and a comparison table. You can also go through our other suggested articles to learn more –
