RobustMQ vs NATS Comparison
Core Difference: NATS is a lightweight, high-performance cloud-native messaging system (implemented in Go) focused on extreme simplicity and low latency. RobustMQ is a cloud-native, multi-protocol unified message middleware (implemented in Rust) focusing on protocol unification and enterprise-grade distributed capabilities, supporting MQTT, Kafka, AMQP and other mainstream protocols.
NATS is a lightweight cloud-native messaging system focused on extreme simplicity and high performance, implemented in Go, featuring single-binary deployment and zero dependencies. Core NATS is a pure in-memory messaging system, while JetStream provides persistent storage capabilities. RobustMQ focuses on multi-protocol unification and enterprise-grade distributed features, implemented in Rust with zero GC, supporting MQTT, Kafka, AMQP and other protocols, providing compute-storage separation and pluggable storage design. This document provides a detailed comparison of their positioning, architecture, features, and applicable scenarios.
1. Positioning & Strategic Goals
NATS is positioned as a lightweight cloud-native messaging system, emphasizing extreme simplicity and high performance. The project is implemented in Go, using a single-binary deployment with zero external dependencies. NATS design philosophy is "simplicity over complexity," avoiding over-engineering. Core NATS is a pure in-memory messaging system without message persistence, providing the highest performance and lowest latency. JetStream is the persistent layer introduced in NATS 2.0, providing message stream storage, replay, consumer management and other features, based on Raft consensus algorithm. NATS supports full mesh clustering (Full Mesh Cluster), with nodes automatically discovering and connecting, featuring self-healing characteristics. Suitable for microservices communication, edge computing, service mesh and other scenarios.
RobustMQ is positioned as a cloud-native, multi-protocol unified message middleware. The project is implemented in Rust, leveraging Rust's memory safety, zero-cost abstraction, and high concurrency performance to provide reliability and performance guarantees. Single-binary deployment, with no external dependencies, makes deployment extremely simple. Native support for multiple standard protocols such as MQTT, Kafka, and AMQP, using community standard SDKs, ensuring protocol compatibility. The storage layer adopts a pluggable design, supporting multiple backends such as memory, SSD, and S3, meeting different performance and cost requirements. Raft consensus-based metadata management provides complete distributed capabilities, including automatic failover and elastic scaling. RobustMQ is specifically designed for cloud-native scenarios, providing Kubernetes Operator and Serverless support.
2. Architecture Design Comparison
NATS adopts an extremely simplified architecture design, with the core server being a single Go binary file with no external dependencies. NATS supports full mesh clustering (Full Mesh Cluster), with nodes automatically discovering and connecting, featuring self-healing characteristics. Core NATS is a pure in-memory messaging system without message persistence, providing the highest performance and lowest latency. JetStream is the persistent layer introduced in NATS 2.0, providing message stream storage, replay, consumer management and other features, based on Raft consensus algorithm to ensure consistency. NATS design philosophy is "simplicity over complexity," avoiding over-engineering.
RobustMQ adopts a layered decoupled architecture, completely separating Broker, Meta Service, and Journal Server to achieve compute-storage separation and independent scaling. The project is implemented in Rust, leveraging Rust's memory safety, zero-cost abstraction, and high concurrency performance to provide reliability and performance guarantees. Single-binary deployment, with no external dependencies, makes deployment extremely simple. Native support for multiple standard protocols such as MQTT, Kafka, and AMQP, using community standard SDKs, ensuring protocol compatibility. The storage layer adopts a pluggable design, supporting multiple backends such as memory, SSD, and S3, meeting different performance and cost requirements. Raft consensus-based metadata management provides complete distributed capabilities, including automatic failover and elastic scaling. RobustMQ is specifically designed for cloud-native scenarios, providing Kubernetes Operator and Serverless support.
| Dimension | NATS | RobustMQ |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture Pattern | Single server process Optional JetStream persistence layer | Broker/Meta/Journal three-tier separation Single binary, cloud-native K8s + Serverless |
| Development Language | Go | Rust |
| Protocol & SDK | NATS protocol (text protocol) Multi-language client libraries | MQTT/Kafka/AMQP multi-protocol Standard SDK, zero learning cost |
| Storage & Distribution | Memory (core NATS) JetStream (file/S3, Raft-based) | Pluggable storage (Memory/SSD/S3/HDFS) Raft metadata, automatic failover |
| Deployment Complexity | Minimalist (single binary, no dependencies) | Minimalist (single binary, no dependencies) |
| Ecosystem Compatibility | NATS proprietary ecosystem | Fully compatible, can replace existing MQ |
3. Core Features & Characteristics Comparison
NATS features extreme simplicity and high performance. Core NATS provides three modes: pub/sub, request-response, and queue subscription, with message delivery being pure in-memory, extremely low latency (microsecond level). Flexible message routing is achieved through topic wildcards (* and >). After JetStream was introduced, it provides message persistence, message replay, consumer management, message acknowledgment and other features, supporting "at least once" and "exactly once" semantics. NATS advantages include simple deployment (single binary, no dependencies), excellent performance (sub-millisecond latency), low operational cost (self-healing cluster). NATS main challenges include: uses proprietary protocol, migrating from existing systems requires rewriting clients; compared to Kafka/Pulsar, JetStream's stream processing capabilities are relatively basic; single protocol limits applicability in multi-scenario use.
RobustMQ features multi-protocol unification, achieving MQTT, Kafka, AMQP and other protocols within a single system, using standard open-source SDKs to ensure protocol compatibility. Implements compute-storage separation, allowing independent scaling of Broker and Storage; pluggable storage supporting memory, SSD, S3, HDFS and other backends. The project is implemented in Rust, achieving zero GC and predictable latency. Provides over 8 data integration connectors (Kafka/Pulsar/MySQL/MongoDB, etc.), supporting complex data workflow orchestration. Optimized for AI scenarios, including AI training pipelines, real-time inference, and multi-modal data processing. Offers complete cloud-native support including single-binary deployment, Kubernetes Operator, Helm charts, and Serverless architecture. RobustMQ's advantages are multi-protocol unified management, reduced operational complexity; compute-storage separation architecture enabling elastic scaling; zero GC, low resource consumption. Its main challenges include: the project is in active development, some advanced features are being implemented; the community size is smaller compared to NATS; production case accumulation is ongoing.
| Feature Dimension | NATS | RobustMQ |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol Support | NATS protocol (text protocol) Multi-language client libraries | MQTT 3.1.1/5.0 (supported) / Kafka (in development) / AMQP (planned) Standard open-source SDK, protocol compatible |
| Performance | Core NATS: microsecond latency JetStream: millisecond latency High throughput | Microsecond latency (memory), million msg/s Zero GC, Tokio async |
| Message Model | Pub/Sub + request-response + queue subscription JetStream provides streams | Pub/Sub + queue + delayed messages Shared/exclusive subscriptions |
| Persistence | Core NATS non-persistent JetStream provides file/S3 persistence | Pluggable: Memory/SSD/S3/HDFS WAL consistency guarantee |
| Data Integration | NATS Streaming basic connectors | 8+ connectors (Kafka/Pulsar/MySQL/MongoDB, etc.) |
| Distribution | Full mesh cluster (self-healing) JetStream Raft-based | Raft metadata, automatic failover, elastic scaling |
| Cloud-Native | Single binary, container-friendly K8s Operator | Single binary deployment, no dependencies K8s Operator + Helm + Serverless |
| AI Scenarios | Basic messaging | AI workflow optimization, training pipelines, real-time inference |
4. Community & Development Stage
| Dimension | NATS | RobustMQ |
|---|---|---|
| Project Status | CNCF graduated project | Active open-source project |
| Maturity | Production-ready, mature features | Core MQTT supported, Kafka in development |
| Community Size | 15k+ stars, widely used | 1.4K+ stars, rapidly growing community |
5. Performance Comparison
| Metric | NATS | RobustMQ |
|---|---|---|
| Throughput | Core NATS: extremely high JetStream: million msg/s | Million msg/s |
| Latency | Core NATS: microsecond JetStream: millisecond | Microsecond (memory) Millisecond (SSD/S3) |
| Concurrency | High concurrency | High concurrency (Tokio async) |
| Resource Usage | Low memory footprint | Low memory footprint (Zero GC) |
6. Applicable Scenarios Comparison
Selection Recommendations
NATS is suitable for scenarios pursuing extreme simplicity and high performance, especially microservices communication, edge computing, and service mesh. Single-binary, no-dependency deployment model makes it very convenient for cloud-native scenarios. Core NATS is suitable for scenarios requiring extremely low latency, while JetStream is suitable for scenarios requiring message persistence and replay. However, migrating from existing Kafka/MQTT systems requires rewriting client code, suitable for new projects or scenarios accepting NATS protocol.
RobustMQ is suitable for production environments requiring multi-protocol support, particularly enterprises operating MQTT, Kafka, AMQP and other systems simultaneously. The compute-storage separation architecture and pluggable storage make it adaptable from edge to cloud, suitable for enterprises requiring flexible scaling. Additionally, RobustMQ's data integration capabilities make it suitable for IoT data pipelines and AI training scenarios.
| Scenario | NATS | RobustMQ |
|---|---|---|
| Microservices Messaging | Simple deployment, low latency, suitable | Suitable, supports multi-protocol |
| Edge Computing | Single binary, low resource consumption, suitable | Suitable, supports pluggable storage |
| IoT Platform | Requires custom integration | Native MQTT support, direct use |
| Streaming Analytics | JetStream basic support | Suitable, supports connectors and AI workflows |
| Multi-Cloud Deployment | Suitable, supports S3 | Native support for S3/HDFS/MinIO |
| Service Mesh | Suitable, CNCF ecosystem integration | Suitable, cloud-native design |
7. Migration Cost Comparison
Migration Recommendations
Migrating from Kafka/RabbitMQ/MQTT to NATS requires rewriting client code (SDK replacement) and protocol adaptation. Kafka Connect/RabbitMQ plugins cannot be directly used, requiring custom data integration. Suitable for new projects or scenarios willing to invest in complete system refactoring.
Migrating from Kafka/RabbitMQ/MQTT to RobustMQ can reuse existing client SDKs (for MQTT/Kafka/AMQP), requiring minimal code changes. The multi-protocol architecture supports gradual migration, avoiding system interruptions caused by one-time switchovers. Pluggable storage allows retaining existing storage solutions, suitable for enterprises with high system stability requirements.
| Migration Path | Complexity | Cost | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kafka → NATS | High | High (rewrite client) | High |
| RabbitMQ → NATS | High | High (protocol adaptation) | High |
| MQTT → NATS | High | High (custom integration) | High |
| Kafka → RobustMQ | Low | Low (reuse SDK) | Low |
| RabbitMQ → RobustMQ | Low | Low (AMQP compatibility) | Low |
| MQTT → RobustMQ | Low | Low (native support) | Low |
8. Summary & Recommendations
NATS is positioned as a lightweight cloud-native messaging system, featuring extreme simplicity and high performance (microsecond latency). The project is implemented in Go, with single-binary deployment and no external dependencies. NATS provides two modes: core NATS (in-memory messaging) and JetStream (persistent streams), suitable for microservices communication, edge computing, and service mesh scenarios. NATS advantages include simple deployment, excellent performance, and low operational cost, but uses proprietary protocol, migration cost is high, and stream processing capabilities are relatively basic.
RobustMQ is positioned as a cloud-native, multi-protocol unified message middleware, featuring MQTT/Kafka/AMQP multi-protocol support, compute-storage separation, pluggable storage, and cloud-native support. Implemented in Rust, leveraging memory safety and high concurrency advantages, achieving zero GC and low resource consumption. Single-binary deployment, with no external dependencies, simplifies operations. The data integration and AI optimization features provide significant value for IoT and AI scenarios. Suitable for production environments requiring multi-protocol support, particularly enterprises operating multiple message queue systems simultaneously.
Recommended Scenarios
NATS: Microservices communication, edge computing, service mesh, scenarios pursuing extreme simplicity and high performance. Suitable for new projects or scenarios accepting NATS protocol and willing to use NATS client libraries.
RobustMQ: Production environments requiring multi-protocol support (MQTT/Kafka/AMQP), enterprises needing flexible scaling (edge to cloud), IoT platforms and AI training pipelines. Suitable for enterprises with high system stability requirements and hoping to unify the management of multiple message queue systems.