We performed a comparison between Apache Spark Streaming and Confluent based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Streaming Analytics solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The solution is better than average and some of the valuable features include efficiency and stability."
"As an open-source solution, using it is basically free."
"The solution is very stable and reliable."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"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."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"With Confluent Cloud we no longer need to handle the infrastructure and the plumbing, which is a concern for Confluent. The other advantage is that all portfolios have access to the data that is being shared."
"There could be an improvement in the area of the user configuration section, it should be less developer-focused and more business user-focused."
"We would like to have the ability to do arbitrary stateful functions in Python."
"The solution itself could be easier to use."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"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."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"Currently, in the early stages, I see a gap on the security side. If you are using the SaaS version, we would like to get a fuller, more secure solution that can be adopted right out of the box. Confluence could do a better job sharing best practices or a reusable pattern that others have used, especially for companies that can not afford to hire professional services from Confluent."
Apache Spark Streaming is ranked 11th in Streaming Analytics with 3 reviews while Confluent is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 8 reviews. Apache Spark Streaming is rated 7.6, while Confluent is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache Spark Streaming writes "Mature and stable with good scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Confluent writes "All portfolios have access to the data that is being shared but there is a gap on the security side". Apache Spark Streaming is most compared with Amazon Kinesis, Apache Flink, Azure Stream Analytics, Spring Cloud Data Flow and Apache Pulsar, whereas Confluent is most compared with Amazon MSK, Amazon Kinesis, AWS Glue, Oracle GoldenGate and Azure Stream Analytics. See our Apache Spark Streaming vs. Confluent report.
See our list of best Streaming Analytics vendors.
We monitor all Streaming Analytics 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.
