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

Confluent vs IBM App Connect 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

Confluent
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (6th)
IBM App Connect
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Data Integration (13th)
 

Featured Reviews

PavanManepalli - PeerSpot reviewer
AVP - Sr Middleware Messaging Integration Engineer at Wells Fargo
Has supported streaming use cases across data centers and simplifies fraud analytics with SQL-based processing
I recommend that Confluent should improve its solution to keep up with competitors in the market, such as Solace and other upcoming tools such as NATS. Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools. They need to improve in that direction by not only reducing costs but also providing better solutions for the problems customers face to avoid frustrations, whether through future enhancement requests or ensuring product stability. The cost should be worked on, and they should provide better solutions for customers. Solutions should focus on hierarchical topics; if a customer has different types of data and sources, they should be able to send them to the same place for analytics. Currently, Confluent requires everything to send to the same topic, which becomes very large and makes running analytics difficult. The hierarchy of topics should be improved. This part is available in MQ and other products such as Solace, but it is missing in Confluent, leading many in capital markets and trading to switch to Solace. In terms of stability, it is not the stability itself that needs improvement but rather the delivery semantics. Other products offer exactly-once delivery out of the box, whereas Confluent states it will offer this but lacks the knobs or levers for tuning configurations effectively. Confluent has hundreds of configurations that application teams must understand, which creates a gap. Users are often unaware of what values to set for better performance or to achieve exactly-once semantics, making it difficult to navigate through them. Delivery semantics also need to be worked on.
Nirav Patel - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior QA Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Cloud workflows have accelerated integrations and now demand better debugging and DevOps support
IBM App Connect provides many features, but there are several areas for improvement. Better debugging and observability would help us track any single transaction end-to-end across steps and connectors. Features such as a step-by-step line view and one-click download for flow execution would be beneficial. Improved CI/CD pipeline and GitOps experience would be valuable. The team wants flows as code and predictable promotion across development, test, and production environments. Stronger native Git integration, export-import functionalities, and first-class pipeline templates like Jenkins, GitHub, and Azure DevOps would be beneficial. More cloud-native, lightweight runtime options would be very helpful. Connector reliability and consistency need improvement because some connectors feel more mature than others, and version changes can break mapping. Pricing and licensing clarity is important because the licensing is complex and can slow down adoption and planning. Some improvement areas include handling very complex structures that the platform currently does not support. Improvements on the DevOps side, particularly providing templates, would be beneficial. The platform is somewhat expensive and hard to predict in terms of cost. Debugging features need to be provided. For CI/CD, the flows are not truly accurate and need improvement.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"We primarily use Confluent for service desk and task management, and it is also good for knowledge base management."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"Having used SharePoint in the past, when I compare with traditional, old document repositories, like SharePoint, I would definitely recommend Confluent."
"I recommend IBM App Connect Enterprise to everyone."
"This solution is used as the integration hub between the internal application of any enterprise."
"One of the most beneficial features is the ability to handle multiple communication technologies, like integrating Kafka flows, which is helpful as other teams heavily use it. Regarding error handling, I initially wrote most of the handling myself. While built-in features for error handling are built-in, it largely depends on the developer. We use a custom solution that catches all exceptions, logs them in a database, and replays them as needed. It has been effective for us for over twenty years."
"The transformation capabilities in IBM App Connect are particularly beneficial."
"It has different type of interfaces that can integrate with companies."
"There is a friendly interface for configuration, and integration is made easy."
"App Connect's best feature is that it can be deployed in a container."
"They give excellent technical support."
 

Cons

"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
"One area we've identified that could be improved is the governance and access control to the Kafka topics. We've found some limitations, like a threshold of 10,000 rules per cluster, that make it challenging to manage access at scale if we have many different data sources."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"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."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"It would be great if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"The interface could be better."
"The integration with HR systems could be better."
"IBM App Connect should improve security features."
"The product should improve its support."
"In the next release, I would like to get some quality connectors."
"The audit logging, transaction logging and other such similar features, such as the IBM App Connect cloud instance, need to be improved."
"Plugins for the repositories are difficult to find."
"Finding developers for the product is difficult since it is a niche solution. I know the OpenShift environment is running well for the microservice environment. We had some issues with the other environment we tried to implement. It can be easily implemented internally, but we have some problems in practice."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Confluent is highly priced."
"Confluence's pricing is quite reasonable, with a cost of around $10 per user that decreases as the number of users increases. Additionally, it's worth noting that for teams of up to 10 users, the solution is completely free."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"It comes with a high cost."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is low pricing and ten is high pricing, I would rate Confluent's pricing at five. I have not encountered any additional costs."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"The licensing cost for IBM App Connect is very high."
"App Connect is not cheap."
"It is very expensive if we want to scale."
"The solution's pricing isn't cheap, but you can get good discounts based on your competitive deal."
"The price could be better."
"The cost depends upon the consumer."
"IBM App Connect's pricing is high compared to other products."
"Initially, App Connect was quite expensive because the cost was based on the number of processors we used. However, it's now based on containers, which means we can be more specific about our consumption and get a better price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Retailer
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
9%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise17
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Confluent?
They charge a lot for scaling, which makes it expensive.
What needs improvement with Confluent?
I recommend that Confluent should improve its solution to keep up with competitors in the market, such as Solace and other upcoming tools such as NATS. Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about ...
What is your primary use case for Confluent?
The main use cases for Confluent are log aggregation and streaming. I'm familiar with Confluent stream processing with KSQL. KSQL helps in terms of data analytics strategies because if we are the d...
What do you like most about IBM App Connect?
I like the adapters. The adapters help us achieve scalability. If you want to connect to SAP, there's an adapter. Salesforce? There's an adapter. You want to connect to another system? There's like...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM App Connect?
Configuration time varies by implementation. For insurance companies with simple JDBC connections, the process is straightforward. However, companies requiring multiple configurations for ODBC, JDB...
What is your primary use case for IBM App Connect?
IBM App Connect serves as our integration platform, allowing us to connect application systems and data without heavy load or heavy coding. In my current organization, we use the AWS cloud, and IBM...
 

Also Known As

No data available
IBM Cast Iron
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
United Way of Allegheny County, Saint-Gobain CPS, Ricoh, SunTrust Banks Inc.
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. IBM App Connect and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.