Cloud · head to head
OpenEBS vs VerneMQ
VerneMQ
Databases
Erlang MQTT broker whose source is Apache 2.0 but whose official binaries need a paid subscription
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: OpenEBS there is no vendor on the other end of an incident unless you separately contract DataCore, so an outage at three in the morning is resolved by your own team and a public Slack channel.; 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: OpenEBS covers Replicated engine, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which OpenEBS and VerneMQ actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), 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 OpenEBS
- Replicated engine
- Local PV engines
- Kubernetes-native management
- Snapshots and clones
- No licence fee
- Hardware independence
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.
OpenEBS
- Running Cassandra or Kafka on Kubernetes where the application already replicates and node-local volumes are sufficientnot VerneMQ
- A platform team that needs persistent volumes on bare metal Kubernetes without a per node subscriptionnot VerneMQ
- An edge or lab deployment where a commercial storage licence cannot be justifiednot VerneMQ
- Replacing hostpath volumes with something that has snapshots and a Container Storage Interface drivernot VerneMQ
VerneMQ
- An industrial operator that wants an MQTT broker with predictable memory behaviour and no data integration features it will not usenot OpenEBS
- A team building from source to stay strictly under Apache 2.0 terms with no vendor licence entanglementnot OpenEBS
- A deployment needing custom authentication logic implemented as a plugin in Lua or over a webhooknot OpenEBS
- An organisation that wants a broker maintained by a small European company rather than by a vendor that keeps changing licencesnot OpenEBS
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
OpenEBS
- There is no vendor on the other end of an incident unless you separately contract DataCore, so an outage at three in the morning is resolved by your own team and a public Slack channel.
- The project has several storage engines with different maturity and different operational characteristics, and choosing the wrong one for your workload produces poor results that look like a product failure.
- Documentation and upgrade guidance assume real Kubernetes storage knowledge, so teams without that expertise underestimate the operational load they are taking on.
- Project governance shifted after DataCore acquired MayaData in 2021, which means the direction of a supposedly neutral project is influenced by one commercial sponsor.
- Disaster recovery, cross-cluster replication and policy-driven data services are thinner than in the commercial alternatives, so organisations with those requirements end up building them or buying a product anyway.
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
OpenEBS
Free- OpenEBSFree
- Apache 2.0 licensed
- All storage engines included
- No node or capacity limits
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 OpenEBS if
- You need replicated engine.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux.
- You also want local pv engines.
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.
Questions people ask
- Is OpenEBS or VerneMQ better?
- Neither clearly leads. OpenEBS 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, OpenEBS or VerneMQ?
- OpenEBS starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
- Does OpenEBS or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
- OpenEBS runs on Linux. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
- Can I use OpenEBS for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is OpenEBS best used for?
- OpenEBS is most often used for running cassandra or kafka on kubernetes where the application already replicates and node-local volumes are sufficient, a platform team that needs persistent volumes on bare metal kubernetes without a per node subscription, an edge or lab deployment where a commercial storage licence cannot be justified, replacing hostpath volumes with something that has snapshots and a container storage interface driver. Of those, running cassandra or kafka on kubernetes where the application already replicates and node-local volumes are sufficient and a platform team that needs persistent volumes on bare metal kubernetes without a per node subscription are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
- What can OpenEBS do that VerneMQ cannot?
- OpenEBS covers Replicated engine, Local PV engines, Kubernetes-native management, Snapshots and clones. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
OpenEBS: Who supports it in production?
The project is community supported. Commercial support is available from DataCore, which acquired the original sponsor MayaData in 2021. Establish that relationship before production, not during an incident.
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.
OpenEBS: Which engine should we use?
If your application replicates its own data, use a Local engine and avoid replicating twice. If it does not, such as with PostgreSQL, use the Replicated engine.
VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?
Yes. Octavo Labs AG in Zurich continues to publish 2.x releases, most recently in 2026.
OpenEBS: Does it cost anything?
No licence fee. The cost is operational, and a support contract if you want someone accountable.
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.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- OpenEBS vs Portworx
- OpenEBS vs Rancher
- OpenEBS vs Longhorn
- OpenEBS vs DigitalOcean
- OpenEBS vs Podman
- OpenEBS vs Qovery
- OpenEBS vs Caddy
- OpenEBS vs Cerebrium
- OpenEBS vs DeepInfra
- OpenEBS vs Go
- OpenEBS vs Proxmox VE
- OpenEBS vs K3s
- OpenEBS vs Rook
- OpenEBS vs containerd
- OpenEBS vs minikube
- OpenEBS vs Cilium
- OpenEBS vs Flux
- OpenEBS vs Linkerd
- OpenEBS vs EMQX
- OpenEBS vs RabbitMQ
- OpenEBS vs NATS
- OpenEBS vs TIBCO Enterprise Message Service
- OpenEBS vs Canary Labs
- OpenEBS vs Solace PubSub+
- OpenEBS vs TimescaleDB
- OpenEBS vs Apache Pulsar
- OpenEBS vs Presto
- OpenEBS vs StarRocks
- OpenEBS vs Timeplus
- OpenEBS vs PostgreSQL
- OpenEBS vs Chroma
- OpenEBS vs Cloudinary
- OpenEBS vs Convex
- OpenEBS vs Dgraph
- OpenEBS vs Dragonfly
- OpenEBS vs Dremio
- VerneMQ vs Portworx
- VerneMQ vs Rancher
- VerneMQ vs Longhorn
- VerneMQ vs DigitalOcean
- VerneMQ vs Podman
- VerneMQ vs Qovery
- VerneMQ vs Caddy
- VerneMQ vs Cerebrium
- VerneMQ vs DeepInfra
- VerneMQ vs Go
- VerneMQ vs Proxmox VE
- VerneMQ vs K3s
- VerneMQ vs Rook
- VerneMQ vs containerd
- VerneMQ vs minikube
- VerneMQ vs Cilium
- VerneMQ vs Flux
- VerneMQ vs Linkerd
- VerneMQ vs EMQX
- VerneMQ vs RabbitMQ
- VerneMQ vs NATS
- VerneMQ vs TIBCO Enterprise Message Service
- VerneMQ vs Canary Labs
- VerneMQ vs Solace PubSub+
- VerneMQ vs TimescaleDB
- VerneMQ vs Apache Pulsar
- VerneMQ vs Presto
- VerneMQ vs StarRocks
- VerneMQ vs Timeplus
- VerneMQ vs PostgreSQL
- VerneMQ vs Chroma
- VerneMQ vs Cloudinary
- VerneMQ vs Convex
- VerneMQ vs Dgraph
- VerneMQ vs Dragonfly
- VerneMQ vs Dremio