Introducing Connector Private Networking: Join The Upcoming Webinar!
‘A Comparison of RabbitMQ vs Apache Kafka and When to Use Each’
RabbitMQ and Apache Kafka are both open-source distributed messaging systems, but they have different strengths and weaknesses. Kafka is a purely distributed log designed for efficient event streaming at a high scale, while RabbitMQ is a traditional messaging system designed for quick message publishing and deletion.
Confluent's innovative products complement and enhance the capabilities of RabbitMQ and Apache Kafka, providing comprehensive solutions for advanced data streaming and data integration needs.
RabbitMQ is good for:
- Low-latency messaging
- Complex routing
- Microservices communication
- Task queuing
Apache Kafka is good for:
- High-throughput messaging
- Stream processing
- Scalability
- Permanent message storage
- Real-time data streaming
- Data integration
When to use RabbitMQ:
- You need low-latency messaging, such as for real-time transactions or order processing.
- You need complex routing, such as routing messages to different queues based on their content or destination.
- You are using a microservices architecture and need a way to communicate between different services.
- You need a task queue to manage and process background tasks.
- You need a lightweight messaging service
When to use Kafka:
- You need high-throughput messaging, such as for processing large volumes of sensor data or social media feeds.
- You need to stream data to multiple applications in real-time.
- You need to integrate data from different sources into a single system.
- You need to build real-time data pipelines.
- You need a permanent message storage system
Differences between RabbitMQ and Apache Kafka
RabbitMQ and Kafka have some key differences, including:
- Architecture: RabbitMQ is a message broker, while Kafka is a distributed streaming platform. This means that RabbitMQ is better suited for delivering messages, long-running tasks that occur in the background, and communication between applications, while Kafka is better suited for storing and streaming data in real time.
- Durability: RabbitMQ messages are stored in memory, while Kafka messages are stored on disk. This makes Kafka more durable than RabbitMQ but also means that it has slightly higher latency.
- Throughput: Kafka has higher throughput than RabbitMQ, making it better suited for handling large volumes of data.
- Scalability: Kafka is more scalable than RabbitMQ, making it better suited for large deployments.
Performance Benchmark comparison
The following table compares the performance of RabbitMQ and Kafka in terms of throughput, latency, and scalability:
| Feature | RabbitMQ | Kafka |
|---|---|---|
| Throughput | Millions of messages per second | Billions of messages per second |
| Latency | Milliseconds | Milliseconds |
| Scalability | Horizontal scaling is possible but can be complex | Horizontal scaling is easy and efficient |
Throughput Benchmark comparison
The following graph compares the throughput of RabbitMQ and Kafka under different workloads:
As you can see, Kafka has significantly higher throughput than RabbitMQ, especially under high load.
Latency comparison
The following graph compares the latency of RabbitMQ and Kafka:
As you can see, RabbitMQ has slightly lower latency than Kafka. However, the difference in latency is very small, and it is unlikely to be noticeable in most applications.
When to use Kafka vs RabbitMQ? A use case comparison
Here are some examples of use cases where Kafka is a better choice than RabbitMQ:
- Real-time data streaming: Kafka is ideal for streaming data to multiple applications in real-time, such as for building real-time dashboards or fraud detection systems.
- Data integration: Kafka can be used to integrate data from different sources into a single system, such as for building a data warehouse or a machine learning platform.
- Stream processing: Kafka can be used to process data streams in real time, such as for filtering, aggregating, or transforming data.
- High-throughput messaging: Kafka can handle large volumes of messages with low latency, such as for processing financial transactions or social media feeds.
- Permanent message storage: Kafka allows you to keep your messages as long as you want. Giving you the ability to replay your events and gain new insight or trends.
Here are some examples of use cases where RabbitMQ is a better choice than Kafka:
- Low-latency messaging: RabbitMQ is ideal for applications with critical latency, such as real-time transactions or order processing.
- Complex routing: RabbitMQ supports complex routing options, such as routing messages to different queues based on their content or destination.
- Microservices communication: RabbitMQ is a good choice for communicating between microservices, as it is lightweight and easy to use.
- Task queuing: RabbitMQ can be used to implement task queues, which can be useful for managing and processing background tasks.
RabbitMQ pros and cons
Pros:
- Low latency
- Complex routing
- Lightweight and easy to use
- Good for microservices communication
Cons:
- Not as scalable as Kafka
- Not as durable as Kafka
- Lower throughput than Kafka
Which to Choose?
While RabbitMQ and Apache Kafka may appear similar from a high level, they each have specific use cases where they excel. In some cases and circumstances companies end up using both for each of their strengths. That is one of the main reasons why there is an official RabbitMQ source connector for Kafka.
If you are looking for a system with low latency, supports complex routing, is relatively lightweight, and works well for microservice communication you want to go with RabbitMQ. However, if you are looking for real-time data streaming, integrating multiple sources, stream processing, large volumes of data, or permanent message storage you’d want to select Apache Kafka.
