No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud 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

Apache Kafka on Confluent C...
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
13th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Confluent
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is 0.9%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Confluent is 6.6%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Confluent6.6%
Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud0.9%
Other92.5%
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

AF
Lead Software Engineer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Has unified log streams from multiple systems and accelerated issue tracking through streamlined setup
I think Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud can be improved by probably working more around Confluent or the tool. In my opinion, it should utilize the response structures in a better way or be able to detect if there is any variable or if there is any data structure that is mismatched, as it would be easier than us manually having to put in the exact name in order for it to match the response. Regarding additional improvements, I would say probably around error handling, where when we encounter errors specific to our response structures and everything, or the tables or anything of that nature, it would be better if we were prompted with better error handling mechanisms. I do not think there are any other improvements Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud needs, aside from error handling and response structures.
PavanManepalli - PeerSpot reviewer
AVP - Sr Middleware Messaging Integration Engineer at Wells Fargo
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

"Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is critical infrastructure for us; without it, our infrastructure costs would increase significantly, potentially amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, and its real-time capabilities accelerate speed to value and enable new use cases, providing significant business value."
"The order guarantee of Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud and the amount of throughput it can handle are valuable; the fact that the consumer pulls the data, not the broker, makes it more resilient and more reliable compared to other technologies."
"Kafka provides handy properties that allow us to directly configure the data, whether to keep it or discard it after use."
"In case of huge transactions on the web or mobile apps, it helps you capture real-time data and analyze it."
"The benefits that I have seen from having a real-time architecture include better velocity for developers; instead of developing many of those capabilities in each team, we can rely on Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud to provide those functionalities we want, and the teams can focus on their own business instead of providing all sorts of APIs and dependencies to other domains, allowing everyone to run faster."
"Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is more reliable and frequent to use compared to Apache Kafka."
"The return on investment has been significant, especially in terms of stability, scalability, and the fact that we almost never had any issues in production."
"Kafka and Confluent Cloud have proven to be cost-effective, especially when compared to other tools. In a recent BI integration program over the past year, we assessed multiple use cases spanning ship-to-shore and various Azure integrations. Our findings revealed that Confluent Kafka performed exceptionally well, standing out alongside Genesys and Azure Event Hubs. While these three are top contenders, the choice among other tools depends on the specific use case and project requirements. The customer initially used tools like SMQs, FITRA, and Stream for real-time data processing. However, after our recommendation, Confluent Cloud proved to be a superior choice, capable of replacing these three tools and simplifying their data infrastructure. This shift to a single tool, Confluent Cloud, streamlined their operations, making maintenance and management more efficient for their internal projects."
"Having used SharePoint in the past, when I compare with traditional, old document repositories, like SharePoint, I would definitely recommend Confluent."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"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."
"The client APIs are the most valuable feature."
"The features I find most useful in Confluent are the Multi-Region Cluster, MRC, and the Cluster Linking for replication."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
 

Cons

"Although, specifically with Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud, it was a bit more challenging to increase adoption because it's very expensive."
"The solution is expensive."
"There are some premium connectors, for example, available in Confluent, which you cannot access in the marketplace, so there are some limitations."
"I thought Confluent would stop me when I crossed the credits, but it did not, and then I got charged."
"Improvement can be made by making it easier to build applications on the real-time stream, focusing on real-time pre-processing and anomaly detection."
"The ability to implement request-response communication on Apache Kafka needs improvement."
"There's one thing that's a common use case, but I don't know why it's not covered in Kafka. When a message comes in, and another message with the same key arrives, the first version should be deleted automatically."
"Some areas for improvement in Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud include issues faced during migration with Kubernetes pods."
"The pricing was high for our needs. We should not have to pay for features we do not use."
"It would be great if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"The beginner who doesn't know how to work on HTML will struggle as when you create spaces in the Confluent, if you want to have some meeting notes or anything else, you need to know HTML and which HTML tags to include."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"I am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is fair, but Confluent requires a little bit more thinking because the price can go up really quickly when it comes to premium connectors."
"I consider that the product's price falls under the middle range category."
"Regarding pricing, Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is not a cheap tool. The right use case would justify the cost. It might make sense if you have a high volume of data that you can leverage to generate value for the business. But if you don't have those requirements, there are likely cheaper solutions you could use instead."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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 has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Retailer
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise17
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud?
I think Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud can be improved by probably working more around Confluent or the tool. In my opinion, it should utilize the response structures in a better way or be able to...
What is your primary use case for Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud?
I have used Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud for one of my projects with regard to log monitoring. My main use case for Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud in that project was mainly streaming of the lo...
What advice do you have for others considering Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud?
My advice to others looking into using Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is that it is easier and has a low learning curve. If there is any use case regarding streaming, I would suggest starting off ...
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?
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 ...
What is your primary use case for Confluent?
The main use cases for Confluent are log aggregation and streaming. I'm familiar with Confluent stream processing with KSQL. KSQL helps in terms of data analytics strategies because if we are the d...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud vs. Confluent and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.