Softwr

Cloud · head to head

Packer vs VerneMQ

Packer logo

Packer

Cloud

Build automated machine images

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: Packer packer 1.10.0 and later is licensed under the Business Source License 1.1 with IBM Corporation as licensor, not an OSI open source licence; 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: Packer covers Image building, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Packer and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where Packer and VerneMQ differ
AttributePackerVerneMQ
Pricing modelopen-sourcequote
PlatformsLinux, Windows, MacLinux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes
CategoryCloudDatabases
Founded2013Unknown

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 Packer

  • Image building
  • Multi-platform support
  • Provisioners
  • Builders
  • Post-processors
  • Variables
  • Data sources
  • Validation

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.

Packer

  • Building identical machine images for multiple clouds from one templatenot VerneMQ
  • Baking golden AMIs and VM images into a CI pipelinenot VerneMQ
  • Creating immutable infrastructure artifacts consumed by Terraformnot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

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

Where each one falls short

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

Packer

  • Packer 1.10.0 and later is licensed under the Business Source License 1.1 with IBM Corporation as licensor, not an OSI open source licence
  • The Additional Use Grant forbids offering Packer to third parties on a hosted or embedded basis in a paid product that competes with IBM's paid versions of Packer
  • Each version converts to the MPL 2.0 Change License only four years after that version is first published, and the Change Date is set separately per version
  • Alternative licensing for uses outside the grant must be arranged with the licensor rather than taken under the public licence

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

Packer

Free
  • Open SourceFree
    • Multi-platform image building
    • Template-driven
    • Provisioner 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 Packer if

  • You need image building.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Windows, Mac.
  • You also want multi-platform support.
Packer 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 Packer or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. Packer 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, Packer or VerneMQ?
Packer starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
Does Packer or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
Packer runs on Linux, Windows, Mac. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use Packer for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Packer best used for?
Packer is most often used for building identical machine images for multiple clouds from one template, baking golden amis and vm images into a ci pipeline, creating immutable infrastructure artifacts consumed by terraform. Of those, building identical machine images for multiple clouds from one template and baking golden amis and vm images into a ci pipeline are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can Packer do that VerneMQ cannot?
Packer covers Image building, Multi-platform support, Provisioners, Builders. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Packer: How much does HashiCorp Packer cost?

Packer does not publish specific pricing on its website. The open-source Packer tool is free, while HCP Packer (HashiCorp's cloud-hosted version) offers a free trial, but detailed pricing requires contacting HashiCorp.

Source
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.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

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

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 Packer

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads