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. Celery vs Kafka

Celery vs Kafka

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Kafka
Kafka
Stacks24.2K
Followers22.3K
Votes607
GitHub Stars31.2K
Forks14.8K
Celery
Celery
Stacks1.7K
Followers1.6K
Votes280
GitHub Stars27.5K
Forks4.9K

Celery vs Kafka: What are the differences?

Celery and Kafka are both popular technologies used in distributed systems. While they both serve similar purposes, there are key differences between the two.

  1. Architecture: Celery is a distributed task queue system that works by passing messages between a task producer and consumers. It is based on a distributed message passing system. On the other hand, Kafka is a distributed streaming platform that acts as a centralized data pipeline, allowing producers to write data and consumers to read data in real-time.
  2. Use Cases: Celery is primarily used for processing and distributing tasks in a distributed system, making it well-suited for task scheduling and workload management. Kafka, on the other hand, is more focused on data streaming and is commonly used for real-time data processing, log aggregation, and event sourcing.
  3. Communication Model: Celery uses a direct messaging model, where the task producer sends messages directly to the consumers. Kafka, on the other hand, uses a publish-subscribe model, where producers publish messages to topics, and consumers subscribe to receive messages from those topics.
  4. Persistence: In Celery, messages are transient by default and not persisted, meaning that if a consumer is not currently available, the message will be lost. Kafka, on the other hand, provides persistent storage of messages, ensuring that messages are not lost even if consumers are not currently active.
  5. Scalability: Celery supports horizontal scalability, allowing you to scale the number of consumers to handle increased workloads. However, adding more consumers can introduce complexities in load balancing and managing the distributed system. Kafka, on the other hand, scales easily and is designed to handle high-throughput and large-scale data streaming, making it a robust choice for handling large workloads.
  6. Ecosystem: Celery has a rich ecosystem of integrations and supports multiple programming languages. It also integrates well with other distributed systems and frameworks. Kafka, on the other hand, has a vibrant community and a wide range of connectors and libraries, making it easy to integrate with various data systems and tools.

In summary, Celery is focused on task distribution and workload management, while Kafka is designed for real-time data streaming and ingestion. Celery uses a direct messaging model and is suitable for smaller workloads, while Kafka uses a publish-subscribe model and is better suited for handling large-scale data streaming. Celery has a rich integration ecosystem, while Kafka has a wide range of connectors and libraries. Both technologies have their strengths and are suited for different use cases within distributed systems.

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 Kafka, Celery

Tarun
Tarun

Senior Software Developer at Okta

Dec 4, 2021

Review

We have faced the same question some time ago. Before I begin, DO NOT use Redis as a message broker. It is fast and easy to set up in the beginning but it does not scale. It is not made to be reliable in scale and that is mentioned in the official docs. This analysis of our problems with Redis may help you.

We have used Kafka and RabbitMQ both in scale. We concluded that RabbitMQ is a really good general purpose message broker (for our case) and Kafka is really fast but limited in features. That’s the trade off that we understood from using it. In-fact I blogged about the trade offs between Kafka and RabbitMQ to document it. I hope it helps you in choosing the best pub-sub layer for your use case.

153k views153k
Comments
viradiya
viradiya

Apr 12, 2020

Needs adviceonAngularJSAngularJSASP.NET CoreASP.NET CoreMSSQLMSSQL

We are going to develop a microservices-based application. It consists of AngularJS, ASP.NET Core, and MSSQL.

We have 3 types of microservices. Emailservice, Filemanagementservice, Filevalidationservice

I am a beginner in microservices. But I have read about RabbitMQ, but come to know that there are Redis and Kafka also in the market. So, I want to know which is best.

933k views933k
Comments
Kirill
Kirill

GO/C developer at Duckling Sales

Feb 16, 2021

Decided

Maybe not an obvious comparison with Kafka, since Kafka is pretty different from rabbitmq. But for small service, Rabbit as a pubsub platform is super easy to use and pretty powerful. Kafka as an alternative was the original choice, but its really a kind of overkill for a small-medium service. Especially if you are not planning to use k8s, since pure docker deployment can be a pain because of networking setup. Google PubSub was another alternative, its actually pretty cheap, but I never tested it since Rabbit was matching really good for mailing/notification services.

266k views266k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Kafka
Kafka
Celery
Celery

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

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.

Written at LinkedIn in Scala;Used by LinkedIn to offload processing of all page and other views;Defaults to using persistence, uses OS disk cache for hot data (has higher throughput then any of the above having persistence enabled);Supports both on-line as off-line processing
-
Statistics
GitHub Stars
31.2K
GitHub Stars
27.5K
GitHub Forks
14.8K
GitHub Forks
4.9K
Stacks
24.2K
Stacks
1.7K
Followers
22.3K
Followers
1.6K
Votes
607
Votes
280
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 126
    High-throughput
  • 119
    Distributed
  • 92
    Scalable
  • 86
    High-Performance
  • 66
    Durable
Cons
  • 32
    Non-Java clients are second-class citizens
  • 29
    Needs Zookeeper
  • 9
    Operational difficulties
  • 5
    Terrible Packaging
Pros
  • 99
    Task queue
  • 63
    Python integration
  • 40
    Django integration
  • 30
    Scheduled Task
  • 19
    Publish/subsribe
Cons
  • 4
    Sometimes loses tasks
  • 1
    Depends on broker

What are some alternatives to Kafka, Celery?

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ

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

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.

ZeroMQ

ZeroMQ

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.

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.

IronMQ

IronMQ

An easy-to-use highly available message queuing service. Built for distributed cloud applications with critical messaging needs. Provides on-demand message queuing with advanced features and cloud-optimized performance.

Apache Pulsar

Apache Pulsar

Apache Pulsar is a distributed messaging solution developed and released to open source at Yahoo. Pulsar supports both pub-sub messaging and queuing in a platform designed for performance, scalability, and ease of development and operation.

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