Apache Kafka Reviews

We have a scalable architecture where we need multiple workers to handle some processing. To make it possible, the backend catches the request and puts it in a common medium, which is the queue of Apache Kafka. The workers then can share and process it.

The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is the clustering which is very easy to scale and we have multiple servers all over our platforms. It has been useful for stability and performance.

Apache Kafka can improve by providing a UI for monitoring. There are third-party tools that can do it, but it would be nice if it was already embedded within Apache Kafka.

I have been using Apache Kafka for approximately two years.

Apache Kafka is stable. We have not had any issues.

the scalability of Apache Kafka is good. We have parts of the information we use in different geographical sites and it doesn't pose any problem.

I have not used technical support.

I previously used RabbitMQ. We switched because Apache Kafka was more stable and had better performance.

The initial setup of Apache Kafka was easy because it is Dockerized. However, if you were to install it yourself it would be difficult. Having it Dockerized makes it worth it. 

The first deployment took approximately two hours. The updates of the solution can be done in a matter of minutes.

Our DevOps team in our IT department did the deployment of the solution. It was mostly virtual work. The maintenance of the solution does not take a lot of time.

We are using the free version of Apache Kafka.

We had a good experience with the solutions, the maintainability and scalability are good. I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

We deploy it for our customers. The main use case is related to log management and metrics because we are a partner of Elastic Stack, and we usually collect information through Kafka.

The high availability is valuable. It is robust, and we can rely on it for a huge amount of data. 

The Kafka Streams capability is also valuable. We get many options to build applications on top of Kafka.

The price for the enterprise version is quite high. It would be better to have a lower price.

I have been working with this solution for four or five years.

It is absolutely stable.

It is very scalable. It is easy to scale it. 

It doesn't matter how many users are using it. The licenses are calculated based on the number of nodes. It is not based on the number of users who are using it. We have between 10 to 20 nodes on average in an organization.

It is quite good, but they don't speak Italian. In Italy, we have to provide support in the Italian language. It is a problem for customers to have support in English. This is the reason why we provide direct support to customers.

I am into pre-sales and project management. I don't usually install Apache Kafka, but its basic installation seems quite simple.

Its deployment is usually quite short. Usually, we are able to deploy it in a few days, but data management and application development can take a few months.

We have our own team to deploy it. We also take care of its maintenance. We have a team of five or six employees to provide 24/7 support to our customers.

It depends on the project. For log management projects, the ROI is not very quick, but we have other projects where we used Kafka for high-value applications, and the ROI was very quick. We got an ROI in a few months.

The price for the enterprise version is quite high.

For on-premise, there is an annual fee, which starts at 60,000 euros, but it is usually higher than 100,000 euros. The cost for a project including the subscription is usually between 100,000 to 200,000 euros. The cost also depends on the level of support. There are two different levels of support.

Kafka is a really good product. To be able to keep it running in the long term, you need to know very well how it works. You should have good knowledge about it. It isn't about just knowing how to install it because it is quite simple to install it. It is important to have the right knowledge and experience to do a good installation and let it run for a long period. You can also go for someone who has the right experience and knowledge.

We are very satisfied with Kafka. I would rate it an eight out of 10. It is not perfect, but it is a really good product.

Apache Kafka is an open-source solution that can be used for messaging or event processing.

Apache Kafka has performance issues that cause it to lag.

We did a couple of POCs on Apache Kafka for more than two years for messaging and event processing.

I rate Apache Kafka an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate Apache Kafka a seven out of ten for scalability.

Since it's an open-source solution, there is no technical support, and users often rely on the community edition.

I have previously worked with Confluent and Anypoint MQ. Confluent is completely an event-driven architecture. Anypoint MQ is a typical messaging software and cannot be used for an event-driven architecture.

The solution's initial setup is quite straightforward. You just have to upgrade a couple of configuration files.

Apache Kafka is an open-source solution.

A non-enterprise business with a low message load can use an open-source solution like Apache Kafka.

I would recommend the solution to enterprise businesses depending on their use cases. Suppose an enterprise business doesn't have any integration or a middleware platform and wants to do a greenfield implementation. I'll evaluate the use cases and refer Apache Kafka to them if messaging is needed only for exception handling or transferring the messages.

I have recommended Apache Kafka to some customers who wanted asynchronous messaging for logging purposes. Those messages were not business-critical messages as such.

I would recommend Apache Kafka to other users. Apache Kafka is more relevant when we use open-source integrations and when customers want to reduce the TCO. As an architect, I recommend the solution to customers based on their messaging needs. Apache Kafka and Anypoint MQ are the only two messaging products available today. The open-source Apache Kafka is always recommended if the customer really doesn't want to get into any of the license models.

Overall, I rate Apache Kafka an eight out of ten.

We use it extensively in our data pushing, for analytics and all of this type of data that is pushed, rather than on a real-time and payment basis. However, we are using it for offline messages, pushing it for processing, and for heavy, heavy usage, rather than extensively using it for financial data.

The main advantage is increased reliability, particularly with regard to data and the speed with which messages are published to the other side. 

The connectivity from the application is straightforward, as is the API integration.

These are some of the most valuable features of this solution. 

In terms of partition tolerance, message reliability is also present, which is a very good feature from the customer's perspective.

The area for improvement in Kafka is difficult to say because it's a solid product that works well in its intended applications. And, we are looking for something that can be used as part of financial implementations, because we don't want too many messages to be delivered to the other side, which is one of the areas I am looking at as well.

One of the things I am mostly looking for is that once the message is picked up from Kafka, it should not be visible or able to be consumed by other applications, or something along those lines. That feature is not present, but it is not a limitation or anything of the sort; rather, it is a desirable feature.

The next release should include a feature that prevents messages from being consumed by other applications once they are picked up by Kafka.

Then there is message dependability because a message is of no use if cannot be consumed. Alternatively, if the message is consumed but not committed, it should not be recorded in the Kafka queues. It should be because that is one of the features that is existing in MQs consistently provide: if the message is not committed, it will be committed back to the queues.

I have not seen that in Kafka.

We have been using Apache Kafka for approximately three years in the organization.

I believe we are working with version 10. Confluent Kafka is what we are using.

It's a stable solution. Once completed, it is a very stable solution.

The scalability is very good. It is scalable horizontally rather than vertically. 

It can scale up to any level horizontally. However, if the message, once used horizontally scalable, cannot be shrunk once the requirement is reduced, some process is actually taking place. That is one thing that is lacking.

I believe there are approximately 10 to 15 people who use it.

This is being used by the data migration, data team, data analytical team, and data engineer. It's being used by all application architects who are just looking into it, as well as middleware integrators and middleware application integrators.

We have big plans to increase the use of various other innovations and stuff like that. We are using it in relation to data activities. 

Also, we are only planning to use the financial part for publishing it, subscribing, and publishing a pop-up model for various use cases.

Apache usually has a community deployment. If you use Apache or any other software, you will usually receive community support. Otherwise, some companies are taking it and beginning to process it. For example, in Kafka, there is a version of Confluent that they use and support. Or, as we call it, the Oracle Big Data platform.

It will be included with Hadoop, Spark, and other similar technologies. That is coming as, one of the back software packages that are part of that offering, and it is supported by Oracle. Depending on the type of open source, there are various types of support available. Other than the community, we will not receive assistance. Otherwise, it's free enterprise, and we can take it from Confluent or other vendors who offer similar products.

Prior to implementing this solution, we were not using another solution. We have been using, Kafka from the beginning with regard to these use cases. However, we are using other queuing solutions, such as MQ, ActiveMQ, IBM IQ, and Q, but the use cases are different. This is primarily due to the large volume, faster processing, and other benefits of using Kafka.

It is not deployed on-premises. 

We use Kafka as part of the OCI Oracle Cloud platform and the Oracle Big Data platform because Kafka is included.

The Apache Kafka setup will take some time because it is not simple, and we have a lot of other components to install. It's fine because we needed all the plugins and other things for the simple implementations, but the containers' implementation is simple. The only difference is that when it comes to Zookeeper, there are a lot of supporting applications running on top of it, such as Zookeeper. As part of their area, Apache Kafka is running on top of Zookeeper. What do they think? As part of their... manageability, the Kafka area, and Apache Zookeeper. As a result, everything must be removed. And it will be preferable if the implementation is simple.  I believe Confluent is doing this, but we have not yet begun.

The deployment, and configuration, will take one hour to complete. However, it is also dependent on the fact that you require a large number of configurations, which we have.

The deployment was completed in-house.

Currently, there is a team of three to maintain this solution. There are application support personnel in charge of access control.

It will be included in the Oracle-specific platform. It is approximately $600,000 USD.

When it comes to Apache Kafka, they must understand how it works and what its internals are. There could be numerous challenges associated with the product and its entire life cycle. You will have to have a good understanding and knowledge of the configuration. You will need a technical person who is knowledgeable in Kafka which will be an advantage and on an ongoing life partner.

It's a very good solution, I would rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

We use Apache Kafka for patching real-time data that we receive over a data transport layer and for putting the data into Apache Kafka. From Apache Kafka, we use several applications to subscribe to topics from different applications that we serve directly to browsers. Additionally, we use these applications inside our solution and have Apache Kafka Stream, which is connected to MongoDB.

Since we receive data in real-time consisting of IoT devices, running vehicles, their locations, their states, and their VNs, the solution is helpful.

The product could be improved with proper documentation. Proper documentation should be the SSE. We have a challenge with configuration, so it isn't easy to configure a standalone Apache Kafka on the premises. It needs to be set up on-premises and surveys being provided in the market want to be excluded. Hence, being a developer and configuring Apache Kafka is very hard. It is user-friendly, but initially, we found it challenging. Improving the documentation in this solution would be much better if documents were provided on GitHub for different things. As the market is growing, Spring solution is working hard to get products in the market so when Python, React JS, and Node.Js came, they were lacking. But today, Spring Boot has a solid framework. So the support on Apache Kafka could be improved, but finding some configurations with Spring Boot isn't easy.

We have been using this solution for over three years and are currently using the latest version.

The solution is stable, and the most fantastic thing about it is its throughput. For example, I have tried MQs, which also have Apache Kafka Streams. So the throughput of Apache Kafka Stream is impeccable and impressive.

The solution is very scalable, and its availability is brilliant. We have approximately 32,000 people on our customer base.

We do not have any experience with customer service and support.

We have tried different MQs, but the subscription and charting available on this solution are better. We have used Queues previously, but this solution is more stable, so we chose it.

The initial setup is dependent on the individual. For example, it would be straightforward if a person practices these things a lot and understands the documentation correctly. However, since most people prefer examples instead of reviewing documentation, it would be easy to set up if they find steps on the internet but difficult if they do not have examples.

I rate the pricing for this solution an eight out of ten. It could be a bit cheaper.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. It is good, but the documentation could be improved.

We used Kafka as a central message bus, transporting data from SNMP through to a database. Some of the processing in between was handled by other components.

We built a solution for a client and the client was happy with the solution.

The message bus capabilities, basically sending messages to it, and the way it handles events or messages is pretty good. The throughput was good. Generally, it was a good component.

We struggled a bit with the built-in data transformations because it was a challenge to get them up and running the way we wanted. There was a bit of a learning curve. It may be that we didn't fully grasp the information.

Also, the documentation covering certain aspects was a bit poor. We had to trawl around different locations to try to find what we needed. When we were able to find documentation on transformation, for example, there wasn't a good set of documentation examples we could use, and the examples we had weren't quite meeting the need. Better examples would've helped us.

I used this solution for about a year and a half. 

It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all.

I don't know how many people were using it on the client's side, but we had a four-person team doing the development work. 

Our team handled the deployment in-house.

Kafka is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs. There are third-party companies who support and provide add-ons to Kafka, but we didn't need to use any of those. Confluence, for example, provides plug-ins for Kafka. 

There were other solutions, like Apache MQ, but there were a number of components we looked at that were based around being a message bus, and Kafka was the winner from that review work.

The documentation can be a challenge. There are quite advanced capabilities of Kafka, like the transformations that you can build to modify the data as needed. We found that the biggest challenge was documentation and being able to gain the knowledge of exactly how to do stuff. We also struggled on the transformation, but other components were fine, so some parts are good, and some parts are bad.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

We utilize Apache Kafka in several areas, including financials, logistics, and client management to name a few.

We used to lose some of our messages when we integrated them in bulk, this solution has stopped that happening.

It is a useful way to maintain messages and to manage offset from our consumers. 

I would like to see an improvement in authentication management.

We have been using the solution for around four years.

The stability is good; the solution operates on our clusters without a big impact.

It is easy to scale.

We used to use a different solution, but our increased throughput meant we needed a product that would allow for a larger queue.

The initial setup was complex for us because we built it internally. This meant that full deployment took around a month.

The implementation was carried out in-house.

I would recommend that other businesses do the deployment themselves, but manage the tool with the aid of a service provider, rather than in-house.

I would rate this product seven out of ten.

We are using Apache Kafka to extract data from a Portuguese data source, utilizing an open-source project for data capture. The connector for this project is linked to both Kafka and Confluence platforms. We then transform the extracted data and store it in Elasticsearch.

We appreciate the ability to persistently and quickly write data, as well as the flexibility to customize it for multiple customers. Additionally, we like the ability to retain data within Apache Kafka and use features, such as time travel to access past customer data. The connection with other systems, such as Apache Kafka and IBM DB2. 

Apache Kafka can improve by adding a feature out of the box which allows it to deliver only one message.

I have used Apache Kafka within the last 12 months.

Apache Kafka is a stable solution.

The scalability of Apache Kafka is good. It can process many requests simultaneously.

We have approximately 600 people using this solution in my organization.

I have not contacted the support from Apache Kafka.

The initial setup is relatively easy as I am using Docker and the files provided by Confluent. However, setting up Apache Kafka in a production environment is not as straightforward. I prefer to use solutions, such as Confluence that already have everything preconfigured. As a developer, creating an environment for it is not a problem for me, but I think it can be challenging for those responsible for the production environment. There have been issues with data loss and other problems in the past. Configuring it for production is not easy.

My deployment was very quick because I am using it locally. We have someone else that does the cloud deployment.

I did our local implementation and we have someone else that does the cloud deployment.

The price of Apache Kafka is good.

I rate the price of Apache Kafka an eight out of ten.

I don't see any major issues with using Apache Kafka. Many companies use it and it's a good solution. My advice would be to use it as a software-as-a-service rather than setting up your own cluster. This way, you can benefit from a preconfigured and maintained platform. It's better to opt for a software-as-a-service solution.

I rate Apache Kafka an eight out of ten.