RabbitMQ vs SQS – What’s the Difference? (Pros and Cons)

RabbitMQ vs SQS – What’s the Difference? (Pros and Cons). Many people search for the Difference between RabbitMQ vs SQS. As technology is rising day by day, asynchronous communication among IT systems is made possible through message queue technologies such as Amazon SQS and RabbitMQ. On one side is Amazon SQS a virtual queue that guarantees the delivery of messages from one system to another. In contrast, RabbitMQ is a conventional message broker. It ensures that the messages get read in the same order as been sent by delivering them in a first-in, first-out manner. Organizations of various sizes use both tools.

But what are their differences? Let’s continue reading RabbitMQ vs SQS – What’s the Difference? (Pros and Cons).

What is RabbitMQ?

First of all RabbitMQ is a free, scalable, open-source messaging system that helps a wide range of web applications work well. It is a messaging system based on Erlang that is able to handle a large number of jobs at the same time.

It functions as a centralized server that enables several applications inside an organization to communicate without the risk of message loss and by various quality of service (QoS) standards. Queues hold messages in a logical order and let requesters and responders exchange messages. Only one person can default subscribe to a RabbitMQ message.

Pros of RabbitMQ

  • Scalability

It is versatile and easy. That is because load balancing and persistent message queuing need few lines of code. The central hub’s connection and the size of the message package make this system much faster and more flexible.

  • Efficiency

RabbitMQ works with C, C++,.NET, and Python. It implies that AMQP can incorporate cross-platform apps. Also it manages IoT devices.

  • Integrability

It supports several messaging protocols, delivery acknowledgment and a message queue. Clusters in RabbitMQ increase availability and bandwidth. In return it enables public and private cloud login and authorization.

  • Deployment

It’s a kind of software often used as a “middleware” element in larger OTP, giving the main node queue scalability and reliability. Moreover it facilitates sequential communications among apps and delivers data smoothly to multiple users.

Cons of RabbitMQ

  • Lags with maintenance

Extremely challenging to maintain, enabling several organizational applications to communicate. So the more extensive the system is more difficult it is to handle.

  • Slow and lagging system

Not good for transforming data at processing huge datasets.

  • Complex clustering

When RabbitMQ is used in clusters, the grouping has only a few features and is very complicated.

  • Poor recordkeeping

When reading texts from disc, each queue index has to have at least one segmentation file kept in memory at all times.

  • Single broker

There is a limited selection of brokers since there is just one broker involved.

What is SQS?

SQS, which stands for “Simple Queue Service,” helps with message alignment. This technology may separate and scale cloud hosting applications more efficiently. Developers can focus on their work instead of message-oriented infrastructure with SQS. Also with Amazon SQS it operates at any capacity so that no messages are lost or that extra services are required.

This technology makes it easier for software solutions to send, store, and receive communications. You may use AWS SQS to send messages using the Amazon Portal, a command-line interface, or an SDK.

Remember that SQS uses two types of queue; SQS FIFO and Standard Queue. A regular queue can feasibly make many deliveries. FIFO (First in, first out) queues ensure that each message is sent only once.

Pros of SQS

  • Reliably Deliver Messages

Benefit of giving you huge amounts of data at different output levels without backup services. Secondly SQS allows you to decouple application components to run and fail independently. Ensures boosting the system’s fault tolerance.

  • Reduce Administrative Expenses

Another plus of AWS SQS is that it doesn’t give you anything directly, but it saves you from installing a message system. Eliminates the time-consuming construction and maintenance of infrastructure upgrades. With SQS queues are dynamic and effortlessly scalable so that you can build and extend applications quickly.

  • Ensure the safety of sensitive information

This tool can be used to send sensitive data between apps using server-side secret writing (SSE). You are able to safely handle SQS keys as well as keys for other AWS services if you use the compass point interface for SQS with KMS.

  • Scale elastically and efficiently

More benefits are that the SQS scales using AWS cloud. It expands with your app. You don’t need to create or provide capabilities. Standard queues may emit an unlimited amount of messages. The “always-on” strategy of self-managed electronic messaging middleware promises cost reductions.

Cons of SQS

  • Less performance control

When operating a large scale message queue system, you must fine tune its output. Because SQS complies with all the regulations, there is no need to look inside.

  • Scale-up cost high

Data transport of SQS costs might increase if you transmit big messages or process messages from beyond the queue’s AWS region. In some situations, the cost of using SQS may be higher than the cost of managing your queue system, even if managing your solution is more work.

  • Unsupported broadcasts

“Exactly once” transmission makes SQS ineffective for like one to many transmissions. For the distribution, developers may utilize SQS with SNS.

  • Costs are high at scale

With pay per use pricing, SQS can be expensive if you send enough messages.

  • Absence of support for broadcasting

The “exactly once” broadcasting feature of SQS doesn’t allow more than one organization to get the same message. This makes it useless for one-to-many broadcasts.

RabbitMQ vs SQS - Key Differences

Both RabbitMQ vs SQS has been used for text queueing applications. Thirdly SQS and RabbitMQ allow your software to send and receive messages safely. Both of them can share a considerable amount of information. The user may use SQS to remove the scaling and activation tasks when there is a highly available message network. Worth adding that RabbitMQ works both as a communication network and an instant messaging platform.

Flexibility of RabbitMQ

  • Sturdy solution. Instead of waiting for a user to pull, it immediately satisfies the demands of the consumers as soon as the request is made.   

Flexibility of SQS

  • Straightforward, uncomplicated and trustworthy messaging system. The approach is simple to scale and efficient in terms of cost.

Availability of RabbitMQ

  • Because it charges a fee, it has a high level of accessibility for the user. Also, the process of using it is straightforward. Doesn’t take much work to add more queues and services.

Availability of SQS

  • As a complimentary service, it includes a high availability package. Like other AWS services, SQS is fully-managed and distributed, making it reliable. AWS duplicates messages to prevent host related loss.

Consistency of RabbitMQ

  • No guarantee for accurate distribution from one person to the next. However, there could be more than one delivery if the first message fails or if the client doesn’t acknowledge the first message.

Consistency of SQS

  • Consistency of SQS is difficult to maintain since the same message cannot be received by the same client numerous times. There is no way to send several messages to many customers simultaneously.

RabbitMQ Cost of Deployment

  • If you send and receive more than 100 million requests per month, it may be less expensive to run a RabbitMQ cluster than to pay the SQS per message price.

SQS Cost of Deployment

  • The pay as you go model uses SQS as its foundational component. Therefore, it is trustworthy to adjust. Even if you exceed Amazon’s 1M free requests/month, at $0.50/1M requests, lighter loads should be cheaper than maintaining a RabbitMQ network.

Durability of RabbitMQ

  • Allows you send temporary messages; likewise, the message queue doesn’t lose any data. Provides a high level of durability. Similarly, if there is crash recovery, it may be adjusted appropriately.      

Durability of SQS

  • Another point with SQS is that it distributes its data storage over several servers to ensure the durability and safety of the data. Because of this additional requirement, there is a greater chance that tasks will be repeated at SQS.

Message Pattern of RabbitMQ

  • Another key point of RabbitMQ supports one to one, single to many, multiple to many, advanced routing, and transport protocol calls.

Message Pattern of SQS

  • By all means SQS is able to fulfil requests made via Amazon’s notification service and offers a message pattern that may be sent in both directions.

Message Transmission of RabbitMQ

  • Compared to RabbitMQ’s primary messaging concept is that the consumer never sends information directly to a queue. Mostly, the producer has no idea which queue the message will be sent to. Instead, a producer can only interact with an exchange by sending messages to it.

Message Transmission of SQS

  • Amazon Simple Query Service’s (SQS) process for transforming messages includes the use of a timer. It is necessary to indicate to the message that it is now in the “processing” stage if the action takes more time than expected.

Feature Comparison of RabbitMQ

  • For one thing AMQP, which is used to build RabbitMQ, makes it possible for many different manufacturers and platforms to work together. In addition to SQS, it supports a variety of additional languages developed by Erlang.

Feature Comparison of SQS

  • Given that SQS was made by Amazon, and it works with many different programming languages, such as Java, Python, Ruby, and JavaScript.

Which is better, RabbitMQ or SQS?

Based on my tests, RabbitMQ may provide quicker response times for sends and gets, often measured in tens of thousands of TPS. In addition, for SQS to reach this level of throughput, it needs to scale horizontally with many instances. So, if you need timings of less than 5ms, RabbitMQ may be an ideal choice. Since my SQS tests at 1000s of TPS revealed, I put times of 20ms to 30ms, which is slightly longer than RabbitMQ.

Thank you for reading RabbitMQ vs SQS – What’s the Difference? (Pros and Cons)

RabbitMQ vs SQS - What's the Difference Conclusion

Summarizing both RabbitMQ vs SQS has primarily been utilized in message queueing applications. Thanks to SQS and RabbitMQ, your app will be able to send and receive messages in a general area. And it keeps the message secure all the way until it gets to its destination. Both of them can exchange an extremely large amount of data.

The user may offload scaling and activation tasks using SQS cheaply when there is a highly available message cluster. Finally its role as a message broker, RabbitMQ also serves as a standardized instant messaging location.

Take a look at our RabbitMQ content here.

Avatar for Farhan Yousuf
Farhan Yousuf

I am a content writer with more than five years of experience in the field. I have written for a variety of industries, and I am highly interested in learning new things. I have a knack for writing engaging copy that captures the reader's attention. In my spare time, I like to read and travel.

2.3 6 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x