Softwr

Databases · head to head

StarRocks vs VerneMQ

StarRocks logo

StarRocks

Databases

Apache 2.0 MPP analytical database built for joins on open table formats

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: StarRocks self-hosting is a genuine operations job: frontend and backend node roles, tablet distribution, compaction and materialised view refresh all need an owner, and there is no small-team-friendly single-binary mode.; 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: StarRocks covers Cost-based optimiser, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which StarRocks and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where StarRocks and VerneMQ differ
AttributeStarRocksVerneMQ
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feequote
PlatformsLinux, Docker, KubernetesLinux, 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 StarRocks

  • Cost-based optimiser
  • Lakehouse query engine
  • Primary key tables
  • Materialised views
  • Shared-data mode
  • MySQL wire protocol

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.

StarRocks

  • Customer-facing analytics where queries join a fact table to several dimensions and must return in well under a secondnot VerneMQ
  • Querying an Iceberg lakehouse directly without copying data into a proprietary warehouse formatnot VerneMQ
  • Replacing a ClickHouse deployment that has become unmanageable because every new question needs another denormalised tablenot VerneMQ
  • Real-time analytics fed by change data capture where rows must be updated in place rather than appendednot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

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

Where each one falls short

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

StarRocks

  • Self-hosting is a genuine operations job: frontend and backend node roles, tablet distribution, compaction and materialised view refresh all need an owner, and there is no small-team-friendly single-binary mode.
  • CelerData is by far the dominant contributor despite Linux Foundation stewardship, so the practical roadmap risk is the same as any single-vendor open source project.
  • It inherits a MySQL-flavoured SQL dialect from its Doris ancestry, so queries written for PostgreSQL, Snowflake or Trino need rewriting rather than porting.
  • Ecosystem support is thinner than ClickHouse or Trino: fewer client libraries, fewer managed hosting options and a much smaller pool of engineers who have run it in production.
  • Memory pressure under concurrent large joins is a common production failure, and the tuning knobs for query memory limits are unforgiving compared with a cloud warehouse that just scales.

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

StarRocks

Free
  • StarRocksFree
    • Apache 2.0 licence
    • Linux Foundation governance
    • No usage or node limits
  • CelerData Cloud$undefined/year
    • Managed StarRocks from the primary contributor
    • BYOC and serverless deployment options
    • Enterprise support and SLAs

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 StarRocks if

  • You need cost-based optimiser.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes.
  • You also want lakehouse query engine.
StarRocks 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 StarRocks or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. StarRocks 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, StarRocks or VerneMQ?
StarRocks starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
Does StarRocks or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
StarRocks runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use StarRocks for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is StarRocks best used for?
StarRocks is most often used for customer-facing analytics where queries join a fact table to several dimensions and must return in well under a second, querying an iceberg lakehouse directly without copying data into a proprietary warehouse format, replacing a clickhouse deployment that has become unmanageable because every new question needs another denormalised table, real-time analytics fed by change data capture where rows must be updated in place rather than appended. Of those, customer-facing analytics where queries join a fact table to several dimensions and must return in well under a second and querying an iceberg lakehouse directly without copying data into a proprietary warehouse format are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can StarRocks do that VerneMQ cannot?
StarRocks covers Cost-based optimiser, Lakehouse query engine, Primary key tables, Materialised views. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

StarRocks: Is StarRocks open source?

Yes, Apache 2.0, governed under the Linux Foundation since 2023.

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.

StarRocks: How does it differ from ClickHouse?

StarRocks is built for joins across a star schema with a cost-based optimiser; ClickHouse is fastest on denormalised single tables.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

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

StarRocks: Who maintains it?

CelerData, formerly StarRocks Inc, is the dominant contributor and sells the managed service.

VerneMQ: Does it have a managed cloud?

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

StarRocks: Can it query Iceberg tables directly?

Yes, along with Hudi, Delta Lake, Hive and Paimon, with a local cache for repeat queries.

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 StarRocks

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads