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

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
11th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
3.7
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Confluent
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
3rd
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 October 2025, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Confluent is 8.5%, down from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Streaming Analytics Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Confluent8.5%
Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud0.1%
Other91.4%
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

FABIO LUIS VELLOSO DA SILVA - PeerSpot reviewer
Has enabled asynchronous communication and real-time data processing with strong performance
The valuable features with Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud are the messaging and the asynchronous messages; it's the basic, not advanced usage. It's only to create clusters to receive and send messages. The point is the asynchronous messages and the scalability; it is important for us. To guarantee the compliance of the architecture and the patterns for the company, to provide scalability, and to guarantee the security to send the messages. The Kafka Streams API helps with real-time data transformations and aggregations. It's very fast and helps us to create the project, guarantee the message delivery, and the performance. It's a good experience with very impressive processing and a very impressive project and product.
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

"In case of huge transactions on the web or mobile apps, it helps you capture real-time data and analyze it."
"Overall, I think it's a good experience. Apache Kafka can be quite complex and difficult to maintain on your own, so using Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud makes it much easier to use it without worrying about setup and maintenance."
"Confluent Cloud handles data volume pretty well."
"Kafka provides handy properties that allow us to directly configure the data, whether to keep it or discard it after use."
"Some of the best features with Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud are streaming and event capabilities, which are important due to scalability and resiliency."
"The product's installation phase is pretty straightforward for us since we know how to use it."
"Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is more reliable and frequent to use compared to Apache Kafka."
"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."
"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 biggest benefit of Confluent as a tool is that it is a distributed platform that provides more durability and stability."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"The benefit is escaping email communication. Sometimes people ignore emails or put them into spam, but with Confluence, everyone sees the same text at the same time."
"The most valuable feature that we are using is the data replication between the data centers allowing us to configure a disaster recovery or software. However, is it's not mandatory to use and because most of the features that we use are from Apache Kafka, such as end-to-end encryption. Internally, we can develop our own kind of product or service from Apache Kafka."
"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
 

Cons

"Maybe in terms of Apache Kafka's integration with other Microsoft tools, our company faced some challenges."
"There could be an in-built feature for data analysis."
"The solution is expensive."
"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."
"The clustering is a little hard for juniors and clients. It's suitable for senior engineers, but the configuration and clustering are very hard for juniors."
"Some areas for improvement in Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud include issues faced during migration with Kubernetes pods."
"Regarding real-time data usage, there were challenges with CDC (Change Data Capture) integrations. Specifically, with PyTRAN, we encountered difficulties. We recommended using our on-premises Kaspersky as an alternative to PyTRAN for that specific use case due to issues with CDC store configuration and log reading challenges with the iton components."
"There are some premium connectors, for example, available in Confluent, which you cannot access in the marketplace, so there are some limitations."
"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."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
 

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."
"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."
"I consider that the product's price falls under the middle range category."
"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."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is low pricing and ten is high pricing, I would rate Confluent's pricing at five. I have not encountered any additional costs."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"It comes with a high cost."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
869,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
6%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise6
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud?
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 s...
What needs improvement with Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud?
If it were easier to configure clusters and had more straightforward configuration, high-level API abstraction in the APIs could improve it. The clustering is a little hard for juniors and clients....
What is your primary use case for Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud?
We need to send a lot of asynchronous messages in this project, and we use the middleware and Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud to guarantee asynchronous messaging between the services. We use Apache...
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 ...
 

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: September 2025.
869,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.