We performed a comparison between Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud and F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two AWS Marketplace solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 use it for real-time processing workloads. So, in some instances, it's like IoT data. We need to put it into a data lake."
"In case of huge transactions on the web or mobile apps, it helps you capture real-time data and analyze it."
"The tool's investment is less than a physical device."
"The features that I like include LTM and Global Traffic Manager (GTM)."
"The integration capabilities of the product are easy to use, and there is no complexity involved in it."
"It has DoS layer 7 protection, which not many vendors have."
"I have a specific issue with the network interface connector, the NIC. We're limited to a maximum of two NICs in a virtualized environment. It's a limitation of the tool."
"There could be an in-built feature for data analysis."
"For the original Kafka, there is room for improvement in terms of latency spikes and resource consumption. It consumes a lot of memory."
"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."
"The tool has limitations with respect to code and RAM."
"On-the-go upgrades are an option that the tool currently lacks, making it an area where improvements are required."
"F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is a heavy system that needs a lot of CPU, memory, and hard disk."
"I have a specific issue with the network interface connector, the NIC. We're limited to a maximum of two NICs in a virtualized environment. It's a limitation of the tool."
"BIG-IP could improve in supporting microservices, for example, in Docker and Kubernetes environments."
More Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is ranked 5th in AWS Marketplace with 4 reviews while F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is ranked 7th in AWS Marketplace with 5 reviews. Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is rated 8.6, while F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud writes "Helps us manage transactions effectively and integrates seamlessly with our data analysis tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition writes "Offers easy-to-use integration capabilities". Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is most compared with Bitnami, Conductor Cloud Rendering and Cloud Security Connector for Zscaler, whereas F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition is most compared with SOCKS5 Proxy Server with Web Panel. See our Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud vs. F5 BIG-IP Virtual Edition report.
See our list of best AWS Marketplace vendors.
We monitor all AWS Marketplace 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.
