StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Utilities
  3. Background Jobs
  4. Message Queue
  5. Beanstalkd vs ZeroMQ

Beanstalkd vs ZeroMQ

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

ZeroMQ
ZeroMQ
Stacks258
Followers586
Votes71
GitHub Stars10.6K
Forks2.5K
Beanstalkd
Beanstalkd
Stacks111
Followers161
Votes74

Beanstalkd vs ZeroMQ: What are the differences?

  1. Data Structure: One key difference between Beanstalkd and ZeroMQ is their data structure. Beanstalkd is a simple queue system that stores jobs in a queue with priority levels, while ZeroMQ is a messaging library that allows various messaging patterns, including pub/sub, request/reply, and push/pull.

  2. Messaging Patterns: Another significant difference is in the messaging patterns supported. ZeroMQ provides a wide range of messaging patterns, which can be customized for different applications, while Beanstalkd primarily focuses on providing a simple queue system for job processing with support for delayed and priority jobs.

  3. Transport Layers: The transport layers used by Beanstalkd and ZeroMQ also differ. Beanstalkd operates over a TCP connection, while ZeroMQ can support multiple transport protocols such as TCP, IPC, and PGM, providing more flexibility and scalability options.

  4. Language Support: When it comes to language support, ZeroMQ is designed to be language-agnostic, offering bindings for multiple programming languages, including C++, Python, and Java. On the other hand, Beanstalkd has limited language support, primarily focusing on client libraries for languages like Python and Ruby.

  5. Scalability: In terms of scalability, ZeroMQ is known for its high scalability and performance, making it suitable for distributed systems and high-throughput applications. Beanstalkd, while efficient for its intended use cases, may have limitations in handling a large number of concurrent connections and scaling to very high loads.

  6. Community and Support: ZeroMQ has a larger and more active community compared to Beanstalkd, leading to more robust documentation, community support, and ongoing development. This can be a crucial factor for choosing between the two solutions based on the level of community engagement and support available.

In Summary, Beanstalkd and ZeroMQ differ in data structure, messaging patterns, transport layers, language support, scalability, and community engagement and support.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on ZeroMQ, Beanstalkd

Meili
Meili

Software engineer at Digital Science

Sep 24, 2020

Needs adviceonZeroMQZeroMQRabbitMQRabbitMQAmazon SQSAmazon SQS

Hi, we are in a ZMQ set up in a push/pull pattern, and we currently start to have more traffic and cases that the service is unavailable or stuck. We want to:

  • Not loose messages in services outages
  • Safely restart service without losing messages (@{ZeroMQ}|tool:1064| seems to need to close the socket in the receiver before restart manually)

Do you have experience with this setup with ZeroMQ? Would you suggest RabbitMQ or Amazon SQS (we are in AWS setup) instead? Something else?

Thank you for your time

500k views500k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

ZeroMQ
ZeroMQ
Beanstalkd
Beanstalkd

The 0MQ lightweight messaging kernel is a library which extends the standard socket interfaces with features traditionally provided by specialised messaging middleware products. 0MQ sockets provide an abstraction of asynchronous message queues, multiple messaging patterns, message filtering (subscriptions), seamless access to multiple transport protocols and more.

Beanstalks's interface is generic, but was originally designed for reducing the latency of page views in high-volume web applications by running time-consuming tasks asynchronously.

Connect your code in any language, on any platform.;Carries messages across inproc, IPC, TCP, TPIC, multicast.;Smart patterns like pub-sub, push-pull, and router-dealer.;High-speed asynchronous I/O engines, in a tiny library.;Backed by a large and active open source community.;Supports every modern language and platform.;Build any architecture: centralized, distributed, small, or large.;Free software with full commercial support.
-
Statistics
GitHub Stars
10.6K
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Forks
2.5K
GitHub Forks
-
Stacks
258
Stacks
111
Followers
586
Followers
161
Votes
71
Votes
74
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 23
    Fast
  • 20
    Lightweight
  • 11
    Transport agnostic
  • 7
    No broker required
  • 4
    Low latency
Cons
  • 5
    No message durability
  • 3
    Not a very reliable system - message delivery wise
  • 1
    M x N problem with M producers and N consumers
Pros
  • 23
    Fast
  • 12
    Free
  • 12
    Does one thing well
  • 9
    Scalability
  • 8
    Simplicity

What are some alternatives to ZeroMQ, Beanstalkd?

Kafka

Kafka

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

Sidekiq

Sidekiq

Sidekiq uses threads to handle many jobs at the same time in the same process. It does not require Rails but will integrate tightly with Rails 3/4 to make background processing dead simple.

Celery

Celery

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

Amazon SQS

Amazon SQS

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

NSQ

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

ActiveMQ

ActiveMQ

Apache ActiveMQ is fast, supports many Cross Language Clients and Protocols, comes with easy to use Enterprise Integration Patterns and many advanced features while fully supporting JMS 1.1 and J2EE 1.4. Apache ActiveMQ is released under the Apache 2.0 License.

Apache NiFi

Apache NiFi

An easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and distribute data. It supports powerful and scalable directed graphs of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

Gearman

Gearman

Gearman allows you to do work in parallel, to load balance processing, and to call functions between languages. It can be used in a variety of applications, from high-availability web sites to the transport of database replication events.

Memphis

Memphis

Highly scalable and effortless data streaming platform. Made to enable developers and data teams to collaborate and build real-time and streaming apps fast.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase