Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Confluent vs Informatica PowerExchange 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
6.7
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (4th)
Informatica PowerExchange
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Confluent and Informatica PowerExchange aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Confluent is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 8.2%, down 11.2% compared to last year.
Informatica PowerExchange, on the other hand, focuses on Data Integration, holds 1.1% mindshare, up 1.0% since last year.
Streaming Analytics
Data Integration
 

Featured Reviews

Gustavo-Barbosa Dos Santos - PeerSpot reviewer
Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming
Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance. It helps us understand the various requirements of multiple customers and validates the information for different versions. We can automate the tasks using Confluent Kafka. Thus, it guarantees us the data quality and maintains the integrity of message contracts.
Mohammad Faizan Ahmad - PeerSpot reviewer
Helpful in handling areas like complex data sources and data processing but needs improved support services
The major challenge with the tool stems from the fact that if you are implementing it in the cloud, then it has to be within the framework. Another challenge is the large volume of data. Informatica PowerExchange is a product through which we enable connectivity, so it is not an application product or a stand-alone tool, but Informatica's core systems or IICS uses it to connect to multiple systems. The major challenge associated with the tool is on the infrastructure side. The tool's features could be something faster with more connectors. A number of connectors can help connect to a wide variety of applications. The tool should focus on reducing the resilient time, like, if any network disconnectivity happens, then auto-reconnection and the retry method should be more robust so that manual intervention is not required. We communicate with the tool's support team as we need to raise our issues with them. I have already worked with Informatica and have a total experience of around eight to nine years; the one problem with the tool is its support team since they take a lot of time to address a particular issue. If one time you schedule a call and explain the situation to them about the issue, the support team will raise tickets and take notes. They will ask you to share the logs or screenshots of the errors, and you will get no resolution. The support team will randomly give you some documents and expect you to go through them, and if you get back to them with questions, a new person will be allocated, and you will have to start explaining everything again. I would not say it is a pleasant experience.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The benefit is escaping email communication. Sometimes people ignore emails or put them into spam, but with Confluence, everyone sees the same text at the same time."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"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."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"From the product feature or product capability perspective, the aspects around integration, transformation, and standardization are valuable. It's fairly easy to use. It has a GUI-based interface."
"In terms of the return on investment, the tool is very helpful in the digital transformation process since multiple systems are available."
"The user interface and user experience are perfectly all right."
"Mainstream integration and real-time integration are the best features."
"The product’s flexibility is valuable."
"The data transformation is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The product's initial setup phase was not complex. The tool is easy to install onto any of the servers, and you can integrate it."
"The scalability is excellent."
 

Cons

"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."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"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 requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"The Schema Registry service could be improved. I would like a bigger knowledge base of other use cases and more technical forums. It would be good to have more flexible monitoring features added to the next release as well."
"Pushdown optimization could be improved."
"Apache Spark has a machine learning algorithm, an area where Informatica PowerExchange lacks."
"One area that could be improved is performance, as PowerExchange sometimes has less performance compared to native connectors when dealing with a huge volume of data."
"The one place where it could be improved is definitely pricing. That's a very big problem. It depends product to product, but pricing is an issue."
"I have minimal exposure to PowerExchange at this point."
"They should make it quick and easy for use of citizen data integration or for people or integrators developing at the customer side. They could be development teams within the business team. For them, the product owners can consider making it a little bit more seamless and a little bit more democratized."
"The major shortcoming of PowerExchange is high availability and failover. None of the versions we've used to date have had the out-of-the-box ability to enable failover and high-availability requirements. This is a significant challenge and risk."
"The connectivity with T24 core banking could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Confluent is highly priced."
"It comes with a high cost."
"Regarding pricing, I think Confluent is a premium product, but it's hard for me to say definitively if it's overly expensive. We're still trying to understand if the features and reduced maintenance complexity justify the cost, especially as we scale our platform use."
"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."
"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 pricing model of Confluent could improve because if you have a classic use case where you're going to use all the features there is no plan to reduce the features. You should be able to pick and choose basic services at a reduced price. The pricing was high for our needs. We should not have to pay for features we do not use."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"There is a need to pay towards the licensing cost of the product. It is an expensive product."
"The product is not very expensive."
"It's expensive. In fact, nobody would buy any product of Informatica if the price was the only consideration. It costs money, and it doesn't come cheap, but it provides value for money in many ways."
"There are licensing and connector costs. Basically, Informatica is pay-as-you-use."
"The cost of PowerExchange is reasonable. It does not rely on complicated formulas or unrealistic equations. The pricing model is straightforward. There is one component, and real-time integration is included. Some other solutions require purchasing additional modules or third-party plugins for this capability."
"An annual package license fee is required."
"Many users don't prefer to use the product, considering the high costs attached to the licensing part of the solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Confluent?
I find Confluent's Kafka Connectors and Kafka Streams invaluable for my use cases because they simplify real-time data processing and ETL tasks by providing reliable, pre-packaged connectors and to...
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 am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team. The lack of easy access to the Confluent support team is also a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Informatica PowerExchange?
The pricing and cost depend heavily on SAP's licensing structure, especially if using SAP integration services. Informatica is seen as broader in integrations.
What needs improvement with Informatica PowerExchange?
One area that could be improved is performance, as PowerExchange sometimes has less performance compared to native connectors when dealing with a huge volume of data. Additionally, the tool faces t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
PowerExchange, Connectors
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
ACH Food, BNSF Railway Company, Illinois State University
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. Informatica PowerExchange and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.