We performed a comparison between AWS Glue and Confluent based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Of the two solutions, users like the integration capabilities of Confluent. In addition, users appreciate that there is an open source version of Confluent and also mention an ROI. For these reasons, Confluent wins out in this comparison.
"AWS Glue is a stable and easy-to-use solution."
"The solution is serverless so it allows us to transform data while optimizing the cost and performance of Spark jobs."
"I like that it's flexible, powerful, and allows you to write your own queries and scripts to get the needed transformations."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Glue is that it provides a GUI format with a drag-and-drop feature."
"Its user interface is quite good. You just need to choose some options to create a job in AWS Glue. The code-generation feature is also useful. If you don't want to customize it and simply want to read a file and store the data in the database, it can generate the code for you."
"The solution's technical support is good. Whenever we raise a use case where we face an issue in our company, we get a response from the solution's technical team."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Glue is scalability."
"I like the fact that AWS Glue works with Python scripts."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."
"The benefit is escaping email communication. Sometimes people ignore emails or put them into spam, but with Confluence, everyone sees the same text at the same time."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"I would rate the scalability of the solution at eight out of ten. We have 20 people who use Confluent in our organization now, and we hope to increase usage in the future."
"With Confluent Cloud we no longer need to handle the infrastructure and the plumbing, which is a concern for Confluent. The other advantage is that all portfolios have access to the data that is being shared."
"The start-up time is really high right now. For instance, when you start up a new job, you have to wait for five or eight minutes before it starts. If the start-up time is reduced to one or two minutes, it will be great. It will be better to have a direct linkage to Redshift in AWS. If we can use data catalogs from Redshift, it will be so easy to create some data catalogs. Currently, we can only use data catalogs from S3."
"The solution could be cheaper. The price of the solution is an area that needs improvement."
"The interface for AWS Glue could improve, they do not put a lot of details. You can write the code, in PySpark or in Scala, which is a big advantage, it is only easy to use for a developer. It will be difficult for new users to enter the cloud environment."
"On occasion, the solution's dashboard reports that a project failed due to runtime but it actually succeeded."
"Currently, it supports only two languages in the background: Python and Scala. From our customization point of view, it would be helpful if it can also support Java in the background."
"The solution should offer features for streaming data in addition to batching data."
"I have encountered challenges with multi-region support."
"While working on AWS Glue, I could not find any training material for it."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"The Schema Registry service could be improved. I would like a bigger knowledge base of other use cases and more technical forums. It would be good to have more flexible monitoring features added to the next release as well."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"It could have more themes. They should also have more reporting-oriented plugins as well. It would be great to have free custom reports that can be dispatched directly from Jira."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
AWS Glue is ranked 1st in Cloud Data Integration with 37 reviews while Confluent is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 21 reviews. AWS Glue is rated 7.8, while Confluent is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AWS Glue writes "Provides serverless mechanism, easy data transformation and automated infrastructure management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Confluent writes "Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming ". AWS Glue is most compared with AWS Database Migration Service, Informatica PowerCenter, Informatica Cloud Data Integration, SSIS and SnapLogic, whereas Confluent is most compared with Amazon MSK, Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, Oracle GoldenGate and Fivetran. See our AWS Glue vs. Confluent report.
See our list of best Cloud Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Data Integration reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.