Softwr

Databases · head to head

VerneMQ vs Zipkin

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
Zipkin logo

Zipkin

Cloud

Distributed tracing system for microservice latency

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: 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.; Zipkin less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • They diverge on capability: VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, Zipkin covers Trace collection and search.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which VerneMQ and Zipkin actually diverge.

Attributes where VerneMQ and Zipkin differ
AttributeVerneMQZipkin
Pricing modelquoteOpen source, no licence fee
PlatformsLinux, Docker, macOS, KubernetesLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted
CategoryDatabasesCloud

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 VerneMQ

  • Erlang/OTP clustering
  • MQTT 5.0 support
  • Plugin system
  • Backpressure handling
  • Bridge support
  • Metrics export
  • MQTT over WebSockets
  • Pluggable auth backends

Only in Zipkin

  • Trace collection and search
  • Dependency diagram
  • Simple deployment
  • Pluggable storage

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

VerneMQ

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

Zipkin

  • Adding distributed tracing quickly without standing up heavy infrastructurenot VerneMQ
  • Java and Spring Boot estates, where instrumentation support is long-establishednot VerneMQ
  • Small deployments where Jaeger is more than the problem requiresnot VerneMQ

Where each one falls short

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

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.

Zipkin

  • Less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • Fewer features: sampling, storage options and UI are all more limited
  • The interface is dated and slower to work with on large trace volumes
  • Tracing alone still leaves metrics and logs in separate tools during an incident

Pricing, plan by plan

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

Zipkin

Free
  • ZipkinFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

Which should you pick?

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

Choose Zipkin if

  • You need trace collection and search.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
  • You also want dependency diagram.
Zipkin review

Questions people ask

Is VerneMQ or Zipkin better?
Neither clearly leads. VerneMQ starts at Free and Zipkin at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, VerneMQ or Zipkin?
VerneMQ starts at Free and Zipkin at Free.
Does VerneMQ or Zipkin run on more platforms?
VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes. Zipkin runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
Can I use VerneMQ for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is VerneMQ best used for?
VerneMQ is most often used for an industrial operator that wants an mqtt broker with predictable memory behaviour and no data integration features it will not use, a team building from source to stay strictly under apache 2.0 terms with no vendor licence entanglement, a deployment needing custom authentication logic implemented as a plugin in lua or over a webhook, an organisation that wants a broker maintained by a small european company rather than by a vendor that keeps changing licences. Of those, an industrial operator that wants an mqtt broker with predictable memory behaviour and no data integration features it will not use and a team building from source to stay strictly under apache 2.0 terms with no vendor licence entanglement are not what Zipkin is typically brought in for.
What can VerneMQ do that Zipkin cannot?
VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling. Zipkin covers Trace collection and search, Dependency diagram, Simple deployment, Pluggable storage.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

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.

Zipkin: Is Zipkin free?

Yes, open source with no licence fee.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

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

Zipkin: Zipkin or Jaeger?

Jaeger has more momentum, more features and CNCF backing. Zipkin is lighter and quicker to stand up, and remains well supported in the Java and Spring ecosystem.

VerneMQ: Does it have a managed cloud?

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

Zipkin: Does Zipkin work with OpenTelemetry?

Yes. OpenTelemetry can export to Zipkin, which is now the usual way to instrument for it.

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 VerneMQ

More on Zipkin

Keep looking

Other head to heads