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

Apache Kafka vs IBM Event Streams 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
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (3rd)
IBM Event Streams
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Message Queue (MQ) Software (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Apache Kafka and IBM Event Streams aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Apache Kafka is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 3.8%, up 3.5% compared to last year.
IBM Event Streams, on the other hand, focuses on Message Queue (MQ) Software, holds 3.0% mindshare, up 0.9% since last year.
Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Apache Kafka3.8%
Databricks7.5%
Apache Flink7.5%
Other81.2%
Streaming Analytics
Message Queue (MQ) Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Event Streams3.0%
IBM MQ21.0%
ActiveMQ20.1%
Other55.9%
Message Queue (MQ) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Amandeep Pawar - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer at Airy Software Technologies Private Limited
Event-driven architecture has improved asynchronous communication and supports high throughput
We can improve the high throughput because there are some limitations. We could add something to improve Apache Kafka. Based on my daily usage and analysis, there is a complex setup and management, which is one area requiring improvement. Apache Kafka does not have built-in message delay or scheduling capabilities. Apache Kafka cannot natively schedule messages. Limited message prioritization is also an area requiring improvement. Ordering is limited to a single partition. Large messages affect performance. Apache Kafka is optimized for many small to medium-sized messages, but large payloads increase network usage, increase disk usage, and slow down producers and consumers. I rate Apache Kafka eight out of ten instead of ten out of ten because operating an Apache Kafka cluster requires expertise in partitioning, application monitoring, and capacity planning. Self-managed deployment can become complex as the cluster grows. Pro-managed Apache Kafka services significantly reduce the operational overhead.
TM
IBM MQ Specialist / Administrator at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Easy to use, stable, has a good interface, and the security is good
I don't know if it's because of experience, but for me, it was easy to install. It's just a matter of having an RPM, then click next, next, and next again. The difficult part comes in when you have to configure the security. That is the most difficult part, but it's not that difficult. It takes less than two hours to install. Two hours max, because I did one yesterday. I installed it on AWS and it was easy to install the software. It was less than an hour for the bare minimum installation. Setting up the security, took close to two hours.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature is the documentation, which is good and clear."
"The main advantage is increased reliability, particularly with regard to data and the speed with which messages are published to the other side."
"Excellent speeds for publishing messages faster."
"It seemed pretty stable and didn't have any issues at all."
"The solution can handle more speed and has horizontal scalability for both messaging, but more specifically stream processing and data enrichment."
"It just works and it's super fast."
"I have seen a return on investment with this solution."
"This solution is robust and delivers messages quickly."
"The system efficiently processes and calculates the data flow within the cluster using DLP functionality."
"The stability has been good."
"I'm an administrator, and what I like most is the interface, the security, and the storage."
"I am happy with the product, other than pricing I don't have any other improvements that I can suggest."
"The triggering scenarios and routing scenarios are all good, making it a very useful solution for financial institutions."
 

Cons

"More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve. We need to wrap it as a service, but there isn't one built into Windows."
"The product could be improved with proper documentation."
"The manageability should be improved. There are lots of things we need to manage and it should have a function that enables us to manage them all cohesively."
"Apache Kafka can improve by adding a feature out of the box which allows it to deliver only one message."
"Prioritization of messages in Apache Kafka could improve."
"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)."
"Managing Apache Kafka can be a challenge, but there are solutions. I used the newest release, as it seems they have removed Zookeeper, which should make it easier. Confluent provides a fully managed Kafka platform, in which the cluster does not need to be managed."
"Apache Kafka could improve data loss and compatibility with Spark."
"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."
"The pricing needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's a premium product, so it is not price-effective for us."
"The cost can vary depending on the provider and the specific flavor or version you use. I'm not very knowledgeable about the pricing details."
"Apache Kafka is open-source and can be used free of charge."
"It is approximately $600,000 USD."
"The price of the solution is low."
"The price of Apache Kafka is good."
"Apache Kafka is an open-source solution."
"Apache Kafka is an open-source solution."
"The pricing needs to be improved."
"The platform is averagely priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business33
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise51
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Kafka?
From the AWS perspective, the price is on the higher side. However, if you go for Apache Kafka, it is low. From a price perspective, if you are asking about Apache Kafka, I would rate it a nine.
What needs improvement with Apache Kafka?
Apache Kafka is abundant with features which only an expert-level person will be able to manage due to the high volume and high concurrent expectations. Apache Kafka groups could introduce themes o...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Uber, Netflix, Activision, Spotify, Slack, Pinterest
American Airlines, UBank, Bitly, Eurobits, Active International, Bison, Contextor, Constance Hotels, Resorts & Golf, Creval, Deloitte, ExxonMobil, FaceMe, FacePhi, Fitzsoft, Fuga Technologies, Guardio, Honeywell, Japanese airline, Jenzabar, KONE
Find out what your peers are saying about Databricks, Microsoft, Apache and others in Streaming Analytics. Updated: July 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.