We performed a comparison between Amazon MSK and Azure Stream Analytics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Streaming Analytics solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Overall, it is very cost-effective based on the workflow."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon MSK is the integration."
"It is a stable product."
"It offers good stability."
"Amazon MSK has significantly improved our organization by building seamless integration between systems."
"MSK has a private network that's an out-of-box feature."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to create a query using SQ."
"We find the query editor feature of this solution extremely valuable for our business."
"It's scalable as a cloud product."
"Real-time analytics is the most valuable feature of this solution. I can send the collected data to Power BI in real time."
"We use Azure Stream Analytics for simulation and internal activities."
"I like the IoT part. We have mostly used Azure Stream Analytics services for it"
"I like all the connected ecosystems of Microsoft, it is really good with other BI tools that are easy to connect."
"The most valuable features are the IoT hub and the Blob storage."
"It would be really helpful if Amazon MSK could provide a single installation that covers all the servers."
"Amazon MSK could improve on the features they offer. They are still lagging behind Confluence."
"The configuration seems a little complex and the documentation on the product is not available."
"The product's schema support needs enhancement. It will help enhance integration with many kinds of languages of programming languages, especially for environments using languages like .NET."
"It should be more flexible, integration-wise."
"It does not autoscale. Because if you do keep it manually when you add a note to the cluster and then you register it, then it is scalable, but the fact that you have to go and do it, I think, makes it, again, a bit of some operational overhead when managing the cluster."
"The solution doesn't handle large data packets very efficiently, which could be improved upon."
"The collection and analysis of historical data could be better."
"If something goes wrong, it's very hard to investigate what caused it and why."
"The solution's interface could be simpler to understand for non-technical people."
"Early in the process, we had some issues with stability."
"The only challenge was that the streaming analytics area in Azure Stream Analytics could not meet our company's expectations, making it a component where improvements are required."
"We would like to have centralized platform altogether since we have different kind of options for data ingestion. Sometimes it gets difficult to manage different platforms."
"Azure Stream Analytics could improve by having clearer metrics as to the scale, more metrics around the data set size that is flowing through it, and performance tuning recommendations."
Amazon MSK is ranked 6th in Streaming Analytics with 6 reviews while Azure Stream Analytics is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 21 reviews. Amazon MSK is rated 7.2, while Azure Stream Analytics is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Amazon MSK writes "Efficient real-time transaction tracking but time-consuming installation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Stream Analytics writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly, but could be priced better". Amazon MSK is most compared with Confluent, Amazon Kinesis, Google Cloud Dataflow, Aiven for Apache Kafka and Apache Pulsar, whereas Azure Stream Analytics is most compared with Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, Apache Flink, Apache Spark and Apache Spark Streaming. See our Amazon MSK vs. Azure Stream Analytics report.
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.