从表面上看，它们有点相似，但是用例将决定哪种工具是合适的。在我看来，如果你可以使用SQS，那么你应该——如果它能做你想做的事情，它会更简单、更便宜，但这里有一个来自AWS FAQ的更好解释，它给出了两个工具的适当用例示例，以帮助你决定:

常见问题的

对我来说，最大的优势是Kinesis是一个可重玩的队列，而SQS不是。因此，您可以有多个Kinesis的相同消息的消费者(或在不同时间的相同消费者)，而在SQS中，一旦消息被ack，它就从队列中消失了。 因此，SQS更适合工作者队列。

Kinesis支持多消费者功能，这意味着相同的数据记录可以在同一时间或24小时内不同的时间在不同的消费者处处理，SQS中的类似行为可以通过写入多个队列实现，消费者可以从多个队列中读取。然而，再次写入多个队列将在系统中增加几秒(几毫秒)的延迟。

其次，Kinesis提供了路由功能，可以使用分区键将数据记录选择性地路由到不同的分片，这些分区键可以由特定的EC2实例处理，并可以启用微批处理计算{计数和聚合}。

使用任何AWS软件都很容易，但使用SQS是最简单的。使用Kinesis，需要提前提供足够的碎片，动态增加碎片数量以管理尖峰负载，并减少以节省管理所需的成本。这是运动的疼痛，SQS不需要这样的事情。SQS是无限可伸缩的。

请记住，这个答案在2015年6月是正确的

在研究了这个问题一段时间后，我心里有同样的问题，我发现SQS(带SNS)是大多数用例的首选，除非消息的顺序对您很重要(SQS不保证消息的FIFO)。

Kinesis有2个主要优势:

您可以从多个应用程序读取相同的消息 如果需要的话，您可以重新阅读邮件。

这两个优点都可以通过使用SNS作为SQS的扇出来实现。这意味着消息的生产者只向SNS发送一条消息，然后SNS将消息分散到多个SQSs，每个使用者应用程序一个SQSs。通过这种方式，您可以拥有尽可能多的消费者，而无需考虑分片容量。

此外，我们还增加了一个订阅SNS的SQS，可以保存14天的消息。在正常情况下，没有人从这个SQS中读取数据，但如果出现让我们想要倒带数据的错误，我们可以轻松地从这个SQS中读取所有消息，并将它们重新发送到SNS。而Kinesis仅提供7天的留存。

总之，SNS+SQSs更简单，提供了大部分功能。在我看来，你需要一个非常有力的案例来选择Kinesis。

Kinesis解决了流数据典型的映射缩减场景中的映射部分问题。而SQS并不确定这一点。如果你有需要在一个键上聚合的流数据，kinesis可以确保该键的所有数据都到一个特定的分片，并且该分片可以在单个主机上使用，这使得在键上的聚合比SQS更容易

我还要补充一件没人提到过的事情——SQS要贵几个数量级。

另一件事:Kinesis可以触发Lambda，而SQS不能。因此，对于SQS，您要么必须提供一个EC2实例来处理SQS消息(并在失败时处理它)，要么必须有一个预定的Lambda(它不能扩大或缩小—每分钟只能得到一个)。

编辑:这个答案不再正确。自2018年6月起，SQS可以直接触发Lambda

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/with-sqs.html

摘自AWS文档:

We recommend Amazon Kinesis Streams for use cases with requirements that are similar to the following: Routing related records to the same record processor (as in streaming MapReduce). For example, counting and aggregation are simpler when all records for a given key are routed to the same record processor. Ordering of records. For example, you want to transfer log data from the application host to the processing/archival host while maintaining the order of log statements. Ability for multiple applications to consume the same stream concurrently. For example, you have one application that updates a real-time dashboard and another that archives data to Amazon Redshift. You want both applications to consume data from the same stream concurrently and independently. Ability to consume records in the same order a few hours later. For example, you have a billing application and an audit application that runs a few hours behind the billing application. Because Amazon Kinesis Streams stores data for up to 7 days, you can run the audit application up to 7 days behind the billing application. We recommend Amazon SQS for use cases with requirements that are similar to the following: Messaging semantics (such as message-level ack/fail) and visibility timeout. For example, you have a queue of work items and want to track the successful completion of each item independently. Amazon SQS tracks the ack/fail, so the application does not have to maintain a persistent checkpoint/cursor. Amazon SQS will delete acked messages and redeliver failed messages after a configured visibility timeout. Individual message delay. For example, you have a job queue and need to schedule individual jobs with a delay. With Amazon SQS, you can configure individual messages to have a delay of up to 15 minutes. Dynamically increasing concurrency/throughput at read time. For example, you have a work queue and want to add more readers until the backlog is cleared. With Amazon Kinesis Streams, you can scale up to a sufficient number of shards (note, however, that you'll need to provision enough shards ahead of time). Leveraging Amazon SQS’s ability to scale transparently. For example, you buffer requests and the load changes as a result of occasional load spikes or the natural growth of your business. Because each buffered request can be processed independently, Amazon SQS can scale transparently to handle the load without any provisioning instructions from you.

定价模型是不同的，因此根据您的用例，一种或另一种可能更便宜。使用最简单的情况(不包括SNS):

SQS对每个消息收费(每个64 KB算作一个请求)。 Kinesis对每个分片每小时收费(一个分片最多可以处理1000条消息或1 MB/秒)，也对您放入的数据量收费(每25 KB)。

考虑到当前的价格，不考虑免费级别，如果您以最大消息大小每天发送1gb的消息，Kinesis的成本将远远高于SQS (Kinesis每月10.82美元，SQS每月0.20美元)。但如果你每天发送1tb, Kinesis会稍微便宜一些($158/月vs. SQS $201/月)。

详细信息:SQS每百万请求收费0.40美元(每次64 KB)，因此每GB收费0.00655美元。以每天1gb计算，每月不到0.20美元;按每天1tb计算，每月的费用略高于201美元。

Kinesis charges $0.014 per million requests (25 KB each), so $0.00059 per GB. At 1 GB per day, this is less than $0.02 per month; at 1 TB per day, it is about $18 per month. However, Kinesis also charges $0.015 per shard-hour. You need at least 1 shard per 1 MB per second. At 1 GB per day, 1 shard will be plenty, so that will add another $0.36 per day, for a total cost of $10.82 per month. At 1 TB per day, you will need at least 13 shards, which adds another $4.68 per day, for a total cost of $158 per month.

这些技术的语义不同，因为它们是为支持不同的场景而设计的:

SNS/SQS:流中的项之间没有关联 运动:流中的项目相互关联

让我们通过例子来理解其中的区别。

Suppose we have a stream of orders, for each order we need to reserve some stock and schedule a delivery. Once this is complete, we can safely remove the item from the stream and start processing the next order. We are fully done with the previous order before we start the next one. Again, we have the same stream of orders, but now our goal is to group orders by destinations. Once we have, say, 10 orders to the same place, we want to deliver them together (delivery optimization). Now the story is different: when we get a new item from the stream, we cannot finish processing it; rather we "wait" for more items to come in order to meet our goal. Moreover, if the processor process crashes, we must "restore" the state (so no order will be lost).

一旦一个项目的处理不能与另一个项目的处理分离，我们就必须有运动语义，以便安全地处理所有的情况。

Kinesis用例

日志和事件数据收集 实时分析 移动数据采集 “物联网”数据馈送

SQS用例

应用程序集成 解耦microservices 将任务分配给多个工作节点 将实时用户请求与密集的后台工作分离 批处理消息以供将来处理

In very simple terms, and keeping costs out of the picture, the real intention of SNS-SQS are to make services loosely coupled. And this is only primary reason to use SQS where the order of the msgs are not so important and where you have more control of the messages. If you want a pattern of job queue using an SQS is again much better. Kinesis shouldn't be used be used in such cases because it is difficult to remove messages from kinesis because kinesis replays the whole batch on error. You can also use SQS as a dead letter queue for more control. With kinesis all these are possible but unheard of unless you are really critical of SQS.

如果你想要一个好的分区，那么SQS将不会有用。