Explore how MQTT compares to other IoT messaging protocols like AMQP, XMPP, DDS, and CoAP. Discover their strengths, weaknesses, and use cases to make your IoT project decisions.
mart homes, wearables, industrial systems, and even connected cities all have one thing in common: they need a communication protocol to keep everything running smoothly. With so many options out there, today we’re comparing the main ones — MQTT vs. other protocols like AMQP, XMPP, DDS, and CoAP — so you can choose the best fit for your IoT project.
WebbyLab, as an experienced IoT development services provider, will explore the features and use cases of these communication protocols and share firsthand experience using MQTT in such projects as 2Smart Cloud, 2Smart Standalone, Propuskator, and MyBox. So, let’s find out how each protocol works to help you choose the right solution for your needs.
WebbyLab’s 2Smart Cloud platform leverages the MQTT protocol.
IoT devices generate immense volumes of data that must be collected, processed, and shared. Reliable and swift exchange of this information within the IoT ecosystem is even more critical. But what’s the role of MQTT vs. other protocols, and how do MQTT alternatives for IoT stack up in this process?
The most efficient messaging protocol IoT network offers the following advantages:
All in all, the messaging protocols allow for reliable data delivery in dynamic and often unpredictable IoT environments.
Let’s start with our IoT messaging protocols comparison. Look at the definition and difference between MQTT and AMQP:
Here’s a quick AMQP vs MQTT feature comparison:
Alexey Krol
Chief Business Development OfficerConsulted 30+ IoT startups to speed up time to market.
Get a ConsultationLet’s compare AMQP vs MQTT two more thoroughly. We’ll elaborate on the points mentioned in the table above to give you a complete picture of these messaging protocols.
MQTT follows a lightweight publish-subscribe (or client-broker) architecture. In this scenario, MQTT brokers are intermediaries between the MQTT clients and their intended subscribers.
The workflow of an MQTT broker
AMQP follows client-broker and client-server architectures. It provides an extensible framework for building complex messaging scenarios in IoT systems.
MQTT excels in publish-subscribe messaging scenarios. It supports a straightforward topic-based messaging model, where publishers send messages to specific topics, and subscribers receive those messages.
The AMQP protocol supports various messaging scenarios, including publish-subscribe, publish-consume, lifetime, and more. It offers greater flexibility and fine-grained control over message routing and delivery.
A publish-consume messaging scenario of the AMQP broker
Transactions are predefined sequences of message exchanges between two communicating nodes. MQTT is limited in such scenarios, providing the following semantic options: Publish, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Connect, Disconnect, and Close. AMQP, in turn, offers way more: Deliver, Publish, Get, Select, Ack, Nack, Recover, Delete, Reject, Open, and Close.
MQTT offers TSL to authorize client-broker connections, a network-level firewall for broker protection, and encryption for MQTT packet security. AMQP provides a range of authentication options, including usernames/passwords and certificates. It also supports encryption and data integrity through protocols like TLS and SASL.
The MQTT using TSL and a firewall for security
MQTT and AMQP offer quality-of-service (QoS) to control message delivery reliability. Yet, while AMQP supports only two levels of QoS, MQTT has three. They are as follows:
Both AMQP vs MQTT performance allows for handling large-scale deployments. Yet, owing to MQTT’s lightweight nature and publish-subscribe architecture, it’s easier to scale.
MQTT is less extensible than AMQP but provides simplicity and efficiency for resource-limited environments. AMQP, on the other hand, offers a rich and extensible data model. It supports advanced features like message properties, annotations, and header sections.
Let’s continue our comparison of IoT protocols and standards and go into greater depth about XMPP vs MQTT. Here’s the table outlining these solutions’ core advantages, drawbacks, and use cases:
| Criteria | MQTT Protocol | XMPP Protocol |
| Architecture | Client-broker | Client-server |
| Advantages | Lightweight, efficient, and suitable for resource-constrained devices and low-bandwidth networks | Robust and extensible, it supports many features like presence, chat, and group messaging |
| Drawbacks | Limited encryption and message routing | No end-to-end encryption and QoS support, less optimized for constrained environments, more complex to implement |
| Use cases | IoT applications, sensor networks, mobile messaging, and telemetry systems | Instant messaging, social networking, chat applications, collaboration platforms |
Both MQTT vs XMPP are valuable for specific use cases. While MQTT may be perfect for IoT environments with limited resources, XMPP works well for instant messaging, offering advanced extensibility.
Discover our expertise in developing custom IoT solutions for your business!
View our casesWe’ve come to the point of finding the difference between MQTT vs DDS. Look at the core distinctions and similarities between these messaging protocols in the table below:
When comparing the DDS protocol vs MQTT, one big difference is how they handle communication. DDS supports a decentralized, peer-to-peer model, meaning devices can communicate directly with each other without going through a central hub — a broker. MQTT, on the other hand, uses a broker to manage all the messaging.
Speaking of possible applications, MQTT allows smart devices in the home automation system to communicate seamlessly, as these solutions are lightweight and well-suited for resource-constrained settings. DDS, in turn, can be a good choice for critical healthcare, the military, and security facilities for its robust reliability and prompt real-time performance.
Let’s study MQTT and CoAP as part of our IoT communication protocols comparison. Here are the primary points:
When comparing MQTT vs CoAP, both keep your data secure, but in different ways. MQTT uses SSL/TLS to protect data during transfer, while CoAP has built-in DTLS to safeguard its messages right from the start.
Regarding message reliability, MQTT has the upper hand, given the three levels of QoS. As we mentioned earlier, MQTT’s QoS1 makes sure messages get through, even if it means sending them a few times. CoAP does something similar with a confirmable message delivery mechanism. If a message doesn’t get an acknowledgment instantly, CoAP keeps retrying until it does.
What’s more, MQTT has more built-in features like “last will messages” that handle unexpected disconnections or message retention for new subscribers. In contrast, when you look at CoAP vs MQTT, CoAP keeps things simple with the block-wise transfer, which helps manage large data efficiently over constrained networks.
Ask experts how tailored IoT solutions can meet your enterprise needs!
Let`s talk!We’ve already mentioned the IoT use cases of messaging protocols just briefly. Let’s now study each real-life application of MQTT, AMQP, DDS, and CoAP in greater detail.
While MQTT vs. other protocols make it easier for devices to communicate, there are some obstacles you’ll likely run into. Here are the main IoT challenges and solutions:
Among all the messaging protocols in IoT, WebbyLab has extensively worked with MQTT. We use it in our three proprietary products — 2Smart Cloud, 2Smart Standalone, and Propuskator — and in a solution we delivered for our client, MyBox.
WebbyLab’s 2Smart Standalone system uses the MQTT protocol for communication
When we first started working with IoT, we knew we’d be developing multiple products using MQTT. To keep everything consistent, we created our own MQTT convention based on Homie version 3.0.1 from 2018. This convention documents the rules for how topics and messages are structured in the MQTT broker, ensuring that all our devices and clients work together seamlessly.
For MyBox, we developed a cloud ecosystem to manage charging stations and devices. It’s essentially an upgraded version of our 2Smart Cloud platform with MQTT as the backbone for communication between the cloud, devices, and users. MyBox covers everything from various charging stations to tools for managing the whole process. And, of course, all MyBox devices work according to our MQTT convention.
MyBox platform based on 2Smart Cloud
Beyond MyBox, we built three more projects based on 2Smart Cloud. Those are a mobile app for remote monitoring and maintenance of heat pumps, an application for managing and configuring smart LED lamps, and a white-label solution for digital twins — each of them uses MQTT for communication.
2Smart Cloud-based mobile app for heat pump monitoring
But why did we choose MQTT as our core protocol in the first place? Here are the reasons:
Besides that, the MQTT’s popularity played a crucial role in our decision to adopt it. With major smart consumer electronics and DIY solutions supporting this protocol, a wide range of firmware is available for popular devices. It allows us to seamlessly integrate it into our products without disrupting the firmware’s business logic.
Since we build MQTT-based solutions and offer products for IoT device developers, we’ve picked up some best practices and internal tools for working with MQTT brokers and clients. One of our go-to solutions is MQTT Explorer. It helps us subscribe to and browse topics, making developing and testing new IoT devices much easier.
In certain cases, we use a combination of protocols for device communication. For example, we leverage HTTPS across all our projects for OTA updates. Our ACS Propuskator also employs HTTPS, as this protocol ensures secure and reliable delivery of critical notifications and the transmission of larger data volumes like firmware updates. Yet, HTTPS lacks real-time capabilities and is not suitable for receiving sensor and telemetry data.
Propuskator access control system
All in all, we believe that MQTT is suitable for IoT applications in various sectors, from smart home systems and environmental monitoring to industrial automation and the automotive industry.
Selecting a suitable protocol is critical for your IoT project’s further growth. Each with its distinct features, use cases, and standards, MQTT vs. other protocols like AMQP, XMPP, DDS, and CoAP are the options you may want to consider.
If you need guidance on the best-fitting solution for your requirements, WebbyLab can consult you on the most commonly used messaging protocol in IoT — MQTT. Feel free to contact us to get practical insights from our team’s extensive background.
Written by:
Head of IoT at Webbylab
With a robust academic background in Telecommunication Systems Engineering, I apply my knowledge to lead innovations in the IoT domain. Starting as the first team member in the newly formed IoT department at WebbyLab, I've spearheaded its growth, fostering the expansion into embedded and hardware development alongside our core software projects. My dedication lies in pushing the boundaries of IoT technology, fostering a culture of innovation and excellence that profoundly impacts our clients' operational success.
First of all, consider our comparison of IoT protocols to gain an understanding of the options available. Then, pay attention to your project requirements, scalability, reliability, and security needs, bandwidth constraints, and integration capabilities with existing systems.
The best messaging protocols for IoT include:
Yes, WebbyLab can help you with selection. With our extensive expertise in IoT development, we can find the best fit for your project requirements and goals.
A key challenge with MQTT is the negotiation of the central broker setup. Since the broker is responsible for all the messaging, it can become a single point of failure if not properly configured. Another obstacle is ensuring security — while MQTT supports SSL/TLS, you’ll likely need an additional layer of protection.
The cost of MQTT vs. other protocols is often lower due to its simplicity and open-source nature. However, the additional infrastructure needed for scaling — like high-availability brokers — can add to your expenses. So, it’s always best to evaluate if MQTT’s features align with your project’s complexity during the discovery phase.
2025 WEBBYLAB. All rights reserved.
Get a consultation with at Webbylab
