Softwr

Cloud · head to head

Rook vs VerneMQ

Rook logo

Rook

Cloud

Kubernetes operator that deploys and manages Ceph storage clusters

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: Rook rook automates Ceph but does not abstract it, so an incident still demands Ceph expertise, and organisations without it end up hiring consultants at exactly the wrong moment.; 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: Rook covers Ceph operator, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Rook and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where Rook and VerneMQ differ
AttributeRookVerneMQ
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feequote
PlatformsLinux, KubernetesLinux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes
CategoryCloudDatabases

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 Rook

  • Ceph operator
  • Block, file and object
  • Erasure coding
  • CSI driver
  • Automated upgrades
  • Multi-cluster mirroring

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.

Rook

  • An on-premises Kubernetes platform needing block, shared filesystem and S3 storage without buying three productsnot VerneMQ
  • A team that already runs Ceph and wants its lifecycle managed declaratively inside Kubernetesnot VerneMQ
  • A large cluster where three-way replication overhead is unaffordable and erasure coding is requirednot VerneMQ
  • An organisation building a private cloud that cannot use managed cloud storage services for residency reasonsnot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

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

Where each one falls short

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

Rook

  • Rook automates Ceph but does not abstract it, so an incident still demands Ceph expertise, and organisations without it end up hiring consultants at exactly the wrong moment.
  • There is no vendor and no SLA; the realistic commercial support routes are IBM Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation or an independent Ceph consultancy, both of which change the cost picture entirely.
  • Ceph is resource hungry, needing substantial memory and dedicated disks per OSD, so the hardware cost of a properly sized cluster is often underestimated.
  • Recovery and rebalancing after a disk or node failure generates heavy background input and output that can degrade application performance for hours, which surprises teams sizing for steady state.
  • Minimum viable clusters require several nodes with several disks each, so it is impractical at small scale and the entry hardware cost exceeds simpler alternatives.

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

Rook

Free
  • RookFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed, no licence fee
    • Graduated CNCF project
    • Community support via GitHub and Slack only

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 Rook if

  • You need ceph operator.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Kubernetes.
  • You also want block, file and object.
Rook 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 Rook or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. Rook 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, Rook or VerneMQ?
Rook starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
Does Rook or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
Rook runs on Linux, Kubernetes. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use Rook for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Rook best used for?
Rook is most often used for an on-premises kubernetes platform needing block, shared filesystem and s3 storage without buying three products, a team that already runs ceph and wants its lifecycle managed declaratively inside kubernetes, a large cluster where three-way replication overhead is unaffordable and erasure coding is required, an organisation building a private cloud that cannot use managed cloud storage services for residency reasons. Of those, an on-premises kubernetes platform needing block, shared filesystem and s3 storage without buying three products and a team that already runs ceph and wants its lifecycle managed declaratively inside kubernetes are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can Rook do that VerneMQ cannot?
Rook covers Ceph operator, Block, file and object, Erasure coding, CSI driver. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Rook: Who supports it in production?

Nobody by default. IBM sells Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation, which is supported Rook and Ceph, and independent consultancies sell Ceph support. Decide this before deployment.

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.

Rook: Does it need Ceph knowledge?

Yes. Rook handles deployment and routine operations, but troubleshooting a degraded cluster is a Ceph skill and there is no way around it.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

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

Rook: Can it replace an object storage appliance?

Functionally yes, through the RADOS gateway, but you take on the operations that an appliance vendor would otherwise carry.

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 Rook

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads