Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Jurnal SINTA 2

A Comparative Study Evaluation of Kafka and RabbitMQ: Performance, Scalability and Stress Test in Distributed Messaging Systems

JUTI: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Informasi · Vol. 24 No. 1 (2026) · pp. 60–86

DOI
10.12962/j24068535.v24i1.a1345
ISSN
2406-8535, 1412-6389
Published
2026-01-15
Publisher
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Language
eng
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Abstract

The two most widely used Message-Oriented Middleware (MOM) technologies are Apache Kafka and RabbitMQ, both of which have fundamental differences in terms of architecture and performance characteristics. Kafka is designed for high-throughput and good scalability data stream processing, while RabbitMQ excels in message routing flexibility, delivery reliability, and complex queue management. This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of two leading message brokers, namely Apache Kafka and RabbitMQ to evaluate performance, scalability, and behaviour under stress test, for the selection of the most suitable message broker in modern distributed system architectures. The experimental testing process was carried out in four different scenarios: message size variation of 1 KB, 10 KB and 100 KB aimed at measuring performance based on payload size, message volume variation of 10,000, 50,000 and 100,000 messages to see throughput limits and resource usage, consumer number variation of 1, 5 and 10 Measuring the scalability of the consumer system, then a high-intensity pressure test of 100,000 messages in 10 seconds to evaluate the stability and latency of the overload. Key performance metrics, such as throughput, latency, CPU usage, and RAM consumption are carefully evaluated. The overall results of the experiment were more suitable for systems that affect the speed and volume of messages, while Kafka was more appropriate for extreme workloads with high durability requirements. This experiment provided empirical data concluding that RabbitMQ is highly effective for applications that require sending high-volume, low-latency individual messages, while Kafka's strength lies in handling specific data stream sizes and maintaining stability under intense and sustained loads.

Collaboration network of the authors

33 authors · 59 co-authorship links · 2 across different organisations

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
  • Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Febriliyan SamopaInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember4
Tohari AhmadInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember4
Radityo AnggoroInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember2
Henning Titi CiptaningtyasInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Panji Arya LumayungAffiliation unknown1
Liga AwamiAffiliation unknown1
Hindrawan ArisAffiliation unknown1
Nur Aini RakhmawatiInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Muchammad HusniInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Januar BisaptantoAffiliation unknown1
Indera Zainul MuttaqienInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Asad ArismadhaniAffiliation unknown1
I Nyoman Trisna WirawanInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Lidya Amalia RahmaniaAffiliation unknown1
Baskoro Adi PratomoInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Arief PrasetyoInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Faishal Halim SaputraInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Erna AuparayInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Hudan StudiawanInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Amirullah AmirullahUniversitas Bhayangkara Surabaya1
Muhammad Fattahilah RangkutyInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Dino Budi PrakosoInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Akbar Pandu SegaraInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Taufiq Odhi Dwi PutraInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Adi Surya Suwardi AnsyahInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Miftahol ArifinInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Tiara Rahmania HadiningrumInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Resky Ayu Dewi TalasariInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1
Karina Fitriwulandari IlhamInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://juti.if.its.ac.id/index.php/juti/oai, first harvested 26 Okt 2026, last seen 26 Okt 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">A Comparative Study Evaluation of Kafka and RabbitMQ: Performance, Scalability and Stress Test in Distributed Messaging Systems</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Muhammad Rias</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Umam , Ach Muhyil </dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Asmani , Anani </dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Ijtihadie, Royyana Muslim </dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">The two most widely used Message-Oriented Middleware (MOM) technologies are Apache Kafka and RabbitMQ, both of which have fundamental differences in terms of architecture and performance characteristics. Kafka is designed for high-throughput and good scalability data stream processing, while RabbitMQ excels in message routing flexibility, delivery reliability, and complex queue management. This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of two leading message brokers, namely Apache Kafka and RabbitMQ to evaluate performance, scalability, and behaviour under stress test, for the selection of the most suitable message broker in modern distributed system architectures. The experimental testing process was carried out in four different scenarios: message size variation of 1 KB, 10 KB and 100 KB aimed at measuring performance based on payload size, message volume variation of 10,000, 50,000 and 100,000 messages to see throughput limits and resource usage, consumer number variation of 1, 5 and 10 Measuring the scalability of the consumer system, then a high-intensity pressure test of 100,000 messages in 10 seconds to evaluate the stability and latency of the overload. Key performance metrics, such as throughput, latency, CPU usage, and RAM consumption are carefully evaluated. The overall results of the experiment were more suitable for systems that affect the speed and volume of messages, while Kafka was more appropriate for extreme workloads with high durability requirements. This experiment provided empirical data concluding that RabbitMQ is highly effective for applications that require sending high-volume, low-latency individual messages, while Kafka's strength lies in handling specific data stream sizes and maintaining stability under intense and sustained loads.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2026-01-15</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://juti.if.its.ac.id/index.php/juti/article/view/1345</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.12962/j24068535.v24i1.a1345</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">JUTI: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Informasi; Vol. 24, No. 1, January 2026; 60-86</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2406-8535</dc:source>
	<dc:source>1412-6389</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.12962/j24068535.v24i1</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://juti.if.its.ac.id/index.php/juti/article/view/1345/587</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Rias Ramadan, Ach Muhyil Umam, Anani Asmani, Royyana Muslim Ijtihadie</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>