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 (3rd)
Informatica PowerExchange
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (13th)
 

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 8.3%, down 10.2% compared to last year.
Informatica PowerExchange, on the other hand, focuses on Data Integration, holds 1.1% mindshare, up 0.9% 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

"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"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 tools."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"I rate Informatica PowerExchange a ten out of ten."
"The data transformation is the solution's most valuable feature."
"This product is easy to install and it can be done in a few hours."
"The agentless RCDC enablement through PowerExchange is a great idea and has worked very well so far."
"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."
"The main benefit of PowerExchange is its native real-time capabilities. Competing tools are counting on third-party packages or Oracle to offer real-time capabilities. However, Informatica has a native ability to scan the data on the file system level and capture the changes almost instantly when I push it to the consumers. The solution has a powerful built-in replication engine."
"The solution can connect to different systems i.e. mainframe, IMS or AS/400 Legacy Systems."
"It is easy to integrate the solution with other tools."
 

Cons

"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"I am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"The product should integrate tools for incorporating diagrams like Lucidchart. It also needs to improve its formatting features. We also faced issues while granting permissions."
"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."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"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."
"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 solution needs better integration with other tools."
"The major challenge associated with the tool is on the infrastructure side."
"I would like the stability to improve."
"The connectivity with T24 core banking could be improved."
"Real-time has not been enhanced that much over the past few years. There has not been as many features added like they did before."
"I have minimal exposure to PowerExchange at this point."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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."
"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."
"It comes with a high cost."
"There is a need to pay towards the licensing cost of the product. It is an expensive product."
"Many users don't prefer to use the product, considering the high costs attached to the licensing part of the solution."
"An annual package license fee is required."
"The product is not very expensive."
"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."
"There are licensing and connector costs. Basically, Informatica is pay-as-you-use."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Retailer
5%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Insurance Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
 

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?
Informatica PowerExchange is considered cost-efficient due to reduced number of APIs needed, enabling re-utilization of existing channels, cutting down on development and training costs.
What needs improvement with Informatica PowerExchange?
It would be helpful to have more metadata provided, which is useful for engaging more users in data exchange. The addition of data quality dashboards or measures would also help in profiling data 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: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.