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. Hangfire vs Kafka

Hangfire vs Kafka

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Kafka
Kafka
Stacks24.2K
Followers22.3K
Votes607
GitHub Stars31.2K
Forks14.8K
Hangfire
Hangfire
Stacks333
Followers249
Votes17
GitHub Stars9.9K
Forks1.7K

Hangfire vs Kafka: What are the differences?

Key differences between Hangfire and Kafka

Hangfire is a job scheduling library for .NET that allows developers to easily manage and execute background tasks in a web application, while Kafka is a distributed streaming platform designed for building real-time data pipelines and streaming applications.

1. Scalability and Performance: Hangfire is designed for low-latency and high-throughput applications, ensuring scalability and optimal performance in handling large volumes of jobs. On the other hand, Kafka is built to handle massive amounts of data and provide fault tolerance, making it a highly scalable and performant solution for real-time data streaming.

2. Job Execution Model: Hangfire follows a task-based model, where jobs are executed asynchronously in the background using worker threads or processes. Kafka, on the other hand, follows a publish-subscribe model, where messages are produced by producers and consumed by consumers in real-time, enabling reliable and parallel processing of data streams.

3. Job Persistence: Hangfire persistently stores job metadata and state in a SQL Server or another database, ensuring job durability even in case of application or server failures. In contrast, Kafka relies on distributed commit logs for data persistence, allowing fast and fault-tolerant data replication across clusters.

4. Fault Tolerance and Resilience: Hangfire provides built-in mechanisms for job retries, error handling, and monitoring, ensuring fault tolerance and resilience in job execution. Kafka, on the other hand, is designed to handle failures gracefully by providing features like data replication, fault-tolerant storage, and automated rebalancing of data across a cluster.

5. Messaging and Event-Driven Architecture: Hangfire is primarily focused on job scheduling and background tasks, making it suitable for applications requiring asynchronous processing. Kafka, however, offers a more extensive set of messaging capabilities and supports event-driven architectures, enabling real-time data streaming, event sourcing, and building reactive systems.

6. Ecosystem and Integration: Hangfire is tightly integrated with the .NET ecosystem and provides seamless integration with popular frameworks and libraries such as ASP.NET and Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection. Kafka, on the other hand, has a broader ecosystem and provides client libraries for various programming languages, making it more versatile and suitable for multi-technology environments.

In summary, Hangfire is a job scheduling library focused on background task execution in .NET applications, while Kafka is a distributed streaming platform designed for real-time data processing and event-driven architectures. Hangfire offers scalability, persistence, and fault tolerance for job execution, while Kafka provides high-throughput data streaming, fault tolerance, and messaging capabilities.

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, Hangfire

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
Ishfaq
Ishfaq

Feb 28, 2020

Needs advice

Our backend application is sending some external messages to a third party application at the end of each backend (CRUD) API call (from UI) and these external messages take too much extra time (message building, processing, then sent to the third party and log success/failure), UI application has no concern to these extra third party messages.

So currently we are sending these third party messages by creating a new child thread at end of each REST API call so UI application doesn't wait for these extra third party API calls.

I want to integrate Apache Kafka for these extra third party API calls, so I can also retry on failover third party API calls in a queue(currently third party messages are sending from multiple threads at the same time which uses too much processing and resources) and logging, etc.

Question 1: Is this a use case of a message broker?

Question 2: If it is then Kafka vs RabitMQ which is the better?

804k views804k
Comments
Roman
Roman

Senior Back-End Developer, Software Architect

Feb 12, 2019

ReviewonKafkaKafka

I use Kafka because it has almost infinite scaleability in terms of processing events (could be scaled to process hundreds of thousands of events), great monitoring (all sorts of metrics are exposed via JMX).

Downsides of using Kafka are:

  • you have to deal with Zookeeper
  • you have to implement advanced routing yourself (compared to RabbitMQ it has no advanced routing)
10.9k views10.9k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Kafka
Kafka
Hangfire
Hangfire

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

It is an open-source framework that helps you to create, process and manage your background jobs, i.e. operations you don't want to put in your request processing pipeline. It supports all kind of background tasks – short-running and long-running, CPU intensive and I/O intensive, one shot and recurrent.

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
9.9K
GitHub Forks
14.8K
GitHub Forks
1.7K
Stacks
24.2K
Stacks
333
Followers
22.3K
Followers
249
Votes
607
Votes
17
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
  • 7
    Integrated UI dashboard
  • 5
    Simple
  • 3
    Robust
  • 2
    In Memory
  • 0
    Simole

What are some alternatives to Kafka, Hangfire?

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.

Beanstalkd

Beanstalkd

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.

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.

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