We performed a comparison between Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud and Kubecost 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."In case of huge transactions on the web or mobile apps, it helps you capture real-time data and analyze it."
"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."
"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."
"The price is reasonable, considering the value it delivers."
"I mostly like the dashboards."
"It offers a detailed examination of your cluster, including the types of instances utilized, allocated CPU and RAM, and resource distribution for specific applications."
"There could be an in-built feature for data analysis."
"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."
"For the original Kafka, there is room for improvement in terms of latency spikes and resource consumption. It consumes a lot of memory."
"Faster monitoring could potentially improve overall stability in the production environment."
"The integration with other solutions could be improved."
"There is a significant potential for enhancing it through the incorporation of advanced technologies like AI and generative AI."
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 Kubecost is ranked 15th in AWS Marketplace with 3 reviews. Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is rated 8.6, while Kubecost is rated 9.4. 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 Kubecost writes "Identifies and eliminates overprovisioning of expensive resources like storage, highly scalable and offers performance ". Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud is most compared with Bitnami, Conductor Cloud Rendering and Cloud Security Connector for Zscaler, whereas Kubecost is most compared with . See our Apache Kafka on Confluent Cloud vs. Kubecost 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.
