Softwr

Manufacturing · head to head

Ignition vs VerneMQ

Ignition logo

Ignition

Manufacturing

Industrial automation platform for SCADA, HMI and MES

From
On request
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

  • Only VerneMQ has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Ignition requires real engineering to implement; it is a platform rather than a finished application; 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: Ignition covers Unlimited-client licensing, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Ignition and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where Ignition and VerneMQ differ
AttributeIgnitionVerneMQ
Starting priceOn requestFree
Pricing modelPer-server licensing with published module pricing; unlimited clients and tagsquote
Free tierNoYes
PlatformsWindows, Linux, macOS, WebLinux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes
CategoryManufacturingDatabases

Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated).

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 Ignition

  • Unlimited-client licensing
  • SCADA and HMI
  • Historian
  • MES modules
  • Web-based clients
  • Wide PLC support

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.

Ignition

  • Plants where per-tag licensing has made expansion a budget conversationnot VerneMQ
  • Replacing installed operator terminals with browser-based clientsnot VerneMQ
  • Connecting plant floor data to SQL and business systemsnot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

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

Where each one falls short

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

Ignition

  • Requires real engineering to implement; it is a platform rather than a finished application
  • Steep learning curve, and Inductive Automation runs its own training programme because of it
  • Self-hosted and self-supported by default, so plant IT carries the availability burden
  • Module-based pricing means the entry figure is rarely the final one

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

Ignition

On request

No published plan breakdown. See the Ignition review.

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 Ignition if

  • You need unlimited-client licensing.
  • You work on Windows, Linux, macOS, Web.
  • You also want scada and hmi.
Ignition 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 Ignition or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. Ignition starts at On request and VerneMQ at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Ignition or VerneMQ?
VerneMQ has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at On request for Ignition and Free for VerneMQ.
Does Ignition or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
Ignition runs on Windows, Linux, macOS, Web. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use VerneMQ for free?
Yes. VerneMQ has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Ignition starts at On request.
What is Ignition best used for?
Ignition is most often used for plants where per-tag licensing has made expansion a budget conversation, replacing installed operator terminals with browser-based clients, connecting plant floor data to sql and business systems. Of those, plants where per-tag licensing has made expansion a budget conversation and replacing installed operator terminals with browser-based clients are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can Ignition do that VerneMQ cannot?
Ignition covers Unlimited-client licensing, SCADA and HMI, Historian, MES modules. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Ignition: What does Ignition cost?

It publishes per-server module pricing with unlimited clients, tags and connections, so cost does not scale with how many people use it.

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.

Ignition: Why does unlimited-client licensing matter?

Traditional SCADA is licensed per tag or per screen, which turns adding an operator terminal into a purchase. Ignition removes that ceiling.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

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

Ignition: Is it a finished application?

No, it is a platform. Screens, tags and logic are built for the specific plant, which is real engineering work.

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 Ignition

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads