We performed a comparison between Amazon Kinesis and Apache Pulsar based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Databricks, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Confluent and others in Streaming Analytics."The solution's technical support is flawless."
"Amazon Kinesis has improved our ROI."
"The management and analytics are valuable features."
"I have worked in companies that build tools in-house. They face scaling challenges."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon Kinesis is real-time data streaming."
"Great auto-scaling, auto-sharing, and auto-correction features."
"The feature that I've found most valuable is the replay. That is one of the most valuable in our business. We are business-to-business so replay was an important feature - being able to replay for 24 hours. That's an important feature."
"What I like about Amazon Kinesis is that it's very effective for small businesses. It's a well-managed solution with excellent reporting. Amazon Kinesis is also easy to use, and even a novice developer can work with it, versus Apache Kafka, which requires expertise."
"The solution operates as a classic message broker but also as a streaming platform."
"In order to do a successful setup, the person handling the implementation needs to know the solution very well. You can't just come into it blind and with little to no experience."
"Lacks first in, first out queuing."
"One thing that would be nice would be a policy for increasing the number of Kinesis streams because that's the one thing that's constant. You can change it in real time, but somebody has to change it, or you have to set some kind of meter. So, auto-scaling of adding and removing streams would be nice."
"Kinesis can be expensive, especially when dealing with large volumes of data."
"Amazon Kinesis involved a more complex setup and configuration than Azure Event Hub."
"If there were better documentation on optimal sharding strategies then it would be helpful."
"One area for improvement in the solution is the file size limitation of 10 Mb. My company works with files with a larger file size. The batch size and throughput also need improvement in Amazon Kinesis."
"Something else to mention is that we use Kinesis with Lambda a lot and the fact that you can only connect one Stream to one Lambda, I find is a limiting factor. I would definitely recommend to remove that constraint."
"Documentation is poor because much of it is in Chinese with no English translation."
Amazon Kinesis is ranked 2nd in Streaming Analytics with 21 reviews while Apache Pulsar is ranked 12th in Streaming Analytics with 1 review. Amazon Kinesis is rated 8.0, while Apache Pulsar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Amazon Kinesis writes "Used for media streaming and live-streaming data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Apache Pulsar writes "The solution can mimic other APIs without changing a line of code". Amazon Kinesis is most compared with Azure Stream Analytics, Apache Flink, Amazon MSK, Confluent and Spring Cloud Data Flow, whereas Apache Pulsar is most compared with Apache Flink, Apache Spark Streaming, Amazon MSK, Azure Stream Analytics and Google Cloud Dataflow.
See our list of best Streaming Analytics vendors.
We monitor all Streaming Analytics 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.
