We performed a comparison between Apache Kafka and IBM Event Streams based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."There are numerous possibilities that can be explored. While it may be challenging to fully comprehend the potential advantages, one key aspect is the ability to establish a proper sequence of events rather than simply dealing with a jumbled group of occurrences. These events possess their own timestamps, even if they were not initially provided with one, and are arranged in a chronological order that allows for a clear understanding of the progression of the events."
"Kafka is an open-source tool that's easy to use in our country, and the command line interface is powerful."
"It is a stable solution...A lot of my experience indicates that Apache Kafka is scalable."
"valuable features relate to microservices architecture and working on KStream and KSQL DB as a microservices event bus."
"It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all."
"It is a useful way to maintain messages and to manage offset from our consumers."
"The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is its versatility. It can solve many use cases or can be a part of many use cases. Its fundamental value of it is in the real-time processing capability."
"Apache Kafka is scalable. It is easy to add brokers."
"I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"The stability has been good."
"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."
"While the solution scales well and easily, you need to understand your future needs and prep for the peaks."
"In the next release, I would like for there to be some authorization and HTL security."
"The price for the enterprise version is quite high. It would be better to have a lower price."
"As an open-source project, Kafka is still fairly young and has not yet built out the stability and features that other open-source projects have acquired over the many years. If done correctly, Kafka can also take over the stream-processing space that technologies such as Apache Storm cover."
"Kafka requires non-trivial expertise with DevOps to deploy in production at scale. The organization needs to understand ZooKeeper and Kafka and should consider using additional tools, such as MirrorMaker, so that the organization can survive an availability zone or a region going down."
"More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve."
"Something that could be improved is having an interface to monitor the consuming rate."
"The product is good, but it needs implementation and on-going support. The whole cloud engagement model has made the adoption of Kafka better due to PaaS (Amazon Kinesis, a fully managed service by AWS)."
"It would be helpful if they could help us explain why they, as in, the customers, should use the product and the overall benefits."
"The product's interface needs improvement."
"In the next release, I would like to see the GUI allow you to configure the security section."
Apache Kafka is ranked 1st in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 76 reviews while IBM Event Streams is ranked 10th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 3 reviews. Apache Kafka is rated 8.0, while IBM Event Streams is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache Kafka writes "Real-time processing and reliable for data integrity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Event Streams writes "Easy to use, stable, has a good interface, and the security is good". Apache Kafka is most compared with IBM MQ, Amazon SQS, Red Hat AMQ, Anypoint MQ and Oracle Data Integrator (ODI), whereas IBM Event Streams is most compared with Red Hat AMQ and IBM MQ. See our Apache Kafka vs. IBM Event Streams report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software 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.
