Softwr

Databases · head to head

Apache Pulsar vs VerneMQ

Apache Pulsar logo

Apache Pulsar

Databases

Cloud-native messaging and streaming with separated storage

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
VerneMQ logo

VerneMQ

Databases

Erlang MQTT broker whose source is Apache 2.0 but whose official binaries need a paid subscription

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Apache Pulsar more components than Kafka: brokers, BookKeeper and ZooKeeper each need operating; VerneMQ the official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • They diverge on capability: Apache Pulsar covers Separated storage, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Apache Pulsar and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where Apache Pulsar and VerneMQ differ
AttributeApache PulsarVerneMQ
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feequote
PlatformsLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hostedLinux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Databases).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Apache Pulsar

  • Separated storage
  • Queuing and streaming
  • Built-in multi-tenancy
  • Geo-replication

Only in VerneMQ

  • Erlang/OTP clustering
  • MQTT 5.0 support
  • Plugin system
  • Backpressure handling
  • Bridge support
  • Metrics export
  • MQTT over WebSockets
  • Pluggable auth backends

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Apache Pulsar

  • Platforms needing both work queues and replayable streams without running two systemsnot VerneMQ
  • Multi-tenant messaging where isolation between teams is a requirementnot VerneMQ
  • Deployments where storage and traffic grow at genuinely different ratesnot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

  • An industrial operator that wants an MQTT broker with predictable memory behaviour and no data integration features it will not usenot Apache Pulsar
  • A team building from source to stay strictly under Apache 2.0 terms with no vendor licence entanglementnot Apache Pulsar
  • A deployment needing custom authentication logic implemented as a plugin in Lua or over a webhooknot Apache Pulsar
  • An organisation that wants a broker maintained by a small European company rather than by a vendor that keeps changing licencesnot Apache Pulsar

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Apache Pulsar

  • More components than Kafka: brokers, BookKeeper and ZooKeeper each need operating
  • Correspondingly harder to run well, and the expertise is rarer than Kafka expertise
  • A much smaller ecosystem of connectors, tooling and hiring pool than Kafka
  • The architectural advantages only pay off at a scale most deployments never reach

VerneMQ

  • The official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • Octavo Labs is a very small company, so support depth, response times and the bus factor on the codebase are materially thinner than at HiveMQ or EMQ.
  • There is no data integration or rule engine layer, so routing messages into a database means writing and operating your own consumer service.
  • Operating an Erlang cluster requires runtime knowledge that most teams do not have and will use for nothing else in their stack.
  • There is no vendor-managed cloud offering, so every deployment is self-operated with the infrastructure and on-call cost that implies.

Pricing, plan by plan

Apache Pulsar

Free
  • Apache PulsarFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

VerneMQ

Free
  • Source buildFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed source from GitHub
    • Full clustering and plugin capability
    • You compile and package it yourself
  • Binary packages and Docker images$undefined/year
    • Covered by the VerneMQ EULA, not Apache 2.0
    • Yearly usage subscription expected for commercial use
    • Official builds and Docker images
  • Commercial support$undefined/year
    • Evaluation, customisation and operations assistance
    • Custom development
    • Long-term maintenance agreements

Which should you pick?

Choose Apache Pulsar if

  • You need separated storage.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
  • You also want queuing and streaming.
Apache Pulsar review

Choose VerneMQ if

  • You need erlang/otp clustering.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
  • You also want mqtt 5.0 support.
VerneMQ review

Questions people ask

Is Apache Pulsar or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. Apache Pulsar starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Apache Pulsar or VerneMQ?
Apache Pulsar starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
Does Apache Pulsar or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
Apache Pulsar runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use Apache Pulsar for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Apache Pulsar best used for?
Apache Pulsar is most often used for platforms needing both work queues and replayable streams without running two systems, multi-tenant messaging where isolation between teams is a requirement, deployments where storage and traffic grow at genuinely different rates. Of those, platforms needing both work queues and replayable streams without running two systems and multi-tenant messaging where isolation between teams is a requirement are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can Apache Pulsar do that VerneMQ cannot?
Apache Pulsar covers Separated storage, Queuing and streaming, Built-in multi-tenancy, Geo-replication. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Apache Pulsar: Is Apache Pulsar free?

Yes, open source under the Apache Software Foundation.

VerneMQ: Is VerneMQ free?

The source is Apache 2.0 and free. The official binary packages and Docker images are covered by a separate EULA that expects a yearly fee for commercial use.

Apache Pulsar: Pulsar or Kafka?

Pulsar separates storage from compute and covers queuing and streaming in one system. Kafka has a far larger ecosystem and hiring pool. Most teams should have a specific reason before choosing Pulsar.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

Yes. Octavo Labs AG in Zurich continues to publish 2.x releases, most recently in 2026.

Apache Pulsar: Why does separated storage matter?

Brokers hold no data, so adding or replacing one requires no rebalancing, and storage can grow without adding serving capacity.

VerneMQ: Does it have a managed cloud?

No. Every deployment is self-hosted, with commercial support available from Octavo Labs.

VerneMQ: How does it compare to EMQX?

Narrower in features and without a rule engine, but with a simpler licence story for source builds after EMQX moved to BSL.

Share

Related pages

More on Apache Pulsar

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads