Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Ab Initio Co>Operating System vs Confluent comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Ab Initio Co>Operating System
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (27th), Workload Automation (17th)
Confluent
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

Ab Initio Co>Operating System and Confluent aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Ab Initio Co>Operating System is designed for Data Integration and holds a mindshare of 1.6%, up 0.9% compared to last year.
Confluent, on the other hand, focuses on Streaming Analytics, holds 8.5% mindshare, down 9.7% since last year.
Data Integration Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Ab Initio Co>Operating System1.6%
Informatica PowerCenter6.0%
SSIS5.7%
Other86.7%
Data Integration
Streaming Analytics Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Confluent8.5%
Apache Flink14.8%
Databricks12.5%
Other64.2%
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

AM
Enables creation of sophisticated applications with powerful parallelism and quick, effective support
The most valuable features of Ab Initio Co>Operating System are its performance and the ability to implement parallelism. There are three kinds of parallelism in Ab Initio Co>Operating System, which allow us to create very sophisticated solutions for almost any kind of application. This parallelism is one of the strongest features. Additionally, its scalability offers a unique way to escalate applications that differs from other technologies. In terms of data processing, the emphasis is on understanding the data. Data profiling is fundamental, and Ab Initio Co>Operating System integrates tools to perform this within the GDE, as well as specialized products for this purpose. Data profiling graphs can be implemented when necessary to understand the data sources.
PavanManepalli - PeerSpot reviewer
Has supported streaming use cases across data centers and simplifies fraud analytics with SQL-based processing
I recommend that Confluent should improve its solution to keep up with competitors in the market, such as Solace and other upcoming tools such as NATS. Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools. They need to improve in that direction by not only reducing costs but also providing better solutions for the problems customers face to avoid frustrations, whether through future enhancement requests or ensuring product stability. The cost should be worked on, and they should provide better solutions for customers. Solutions should focus on hierarchical topics; if a customer has different types of data and sources, they should be able to send them to the same place for analytics. Currently, Confluent requires everything to send to the same topic, which becomes very large and makes running analytics difficult. The hierarchy of topics should be improved. This part is available in MQ and other products such as Solace, but it is missing in Confluent, leading many in capital markets and trading to switch to Solace. In terms of stability, it is not the stability itself that needs improvement but rather the delivery semantics. Other products offer exactly-once delivery out of the box, whereas Confluent states it will offer this but lacks the knobs or levers for tuning configurations effectively. Confluent has hundreds of configurations that application teams must understand, which creates a gap. Users are often unaware of what values to set for better performance or to achieve exactly-once semantics, making it difficult to navigate through them. Delivery semantics also need to be worked on.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Co>Operating System's most valuable feature is its ability to process bulk data effectively."
"The graphical interface of Ab Initio Co>Operating System is very easy to understand and allows me to visualize the data flow effectively."
"Ab Initio reaches the highest performance and is very flexible in processing huge amounts of data."
"Ab Initio Co>Operating System support is the best I have encountered."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"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 biggest benefit of Confluent as a tool is that it is a distributed platform that provides more durability and stability."
"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."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"The features I find most useful in Confluent are the Multi-Region Cluster, MRC, and the Cluster Linking for replication."
 

Cons

"An awesome improvement would be big data solutions, for example, implementing some kind of business intelligence or neural networks for artificial intelligence."
"Co>Operating System would be improved with more integrations for less well-known technologies."
"Ab Initio Co>Operating System is a very expensive product."
"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"The product should integrate tools for incorporating diagrams like Lucidchart. It also needs to improve its formatting features. We also faced issues while granting permissions."
"We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"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."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Co>Operating System's pricing is on the expensive end since it tends to be used by big enterprises."
"It comes with a high cost."
"Regarding pricing, I think Confluent is a premium product, but it's hard for me to say definitively if it's overly expensive. We're still trying to understand if the features and reduced maintenance complexity justify the cost, especially as we scale our platform use."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"The pricing model of Confluent could improve because if you have a classic use case where you're going to use all the features there is no plan to reduce the features. You should be able to pick and choose basic services at a reduced price. The pricing was high for our needs. We should not have to pay for features we do not use."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"Confluence's pricing is quite reasonable, with a cost of around $10 per user that decreases as the number of users increases. Additionally, it's worth noting that for teams of up to 10 users, the solution is completely free."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
33%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Ab Initio Co>Operating System?
If Ab Initio Co>Operating System could provide an environment that allows users to practice or use it on their own computers, it would be beneficial. Additionally, having more accessible online ...
What is your primary use case for Ab Initio Co>Operating System?
I am primarily in charge of building applications using Ab Initio Co>Operating System.
What advice do you have for others considering Ab Initio Co>Operating System?
If Ab Initio Co>Operating System provided an environment for users to practice on their own computers, it would be preferable. I sometimes recommend it based on company needs. I rate it eight or...
What do you like most about Confluent?
I find Confluent's Kafka Connectors and Kafka Streams invaluable for my use cases because they simplify real-time data processing and ETL tasks by providing reliable, pre-packaged connectors and to...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Confluent?
They charge a lot for scaling, which makes it expensive.
What needs improvement with Confluent?
People do not appreciate that Confluent is pushing us more towards Teams because they want to use a true Microsoft Word-type format where we can format our sentences better, instead of just saying ...
 

Also Known As

Co>Operating System
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

A multinational transportation company
ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Find out what your peers are saying about Ab Initio Co>Operating System vs. Confluent and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.