A pretty fair comparison, I think.<p>NATS requires a broker, ZeroMQ doesn&#x27;t (though it generally supports a &quot;forwarding device&quot;, which -- in the absence of transactional semantics as it is in NATS -- is mostly indistinguishable from a broker).<p>From the user&#x27;s perspective, ZeroMQ provides a superset of the functionality, and a superset of the topologies. Why would you say the comparison is unfair?