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

Confluent vs MuleSoft Composer 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 (5th)
MuleSoft Composer
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (25th), Cloud Data Integration (15th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (14th)
 

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.
reviewer2763903 - PeerSpot reviewer
BTP Architect at a government with 1,001-5,000 employees
Has supported on-premise deployments well but could improve tool consolidation and flow development flexibility
I have analyzed but haven't used MuleSoft Composer extensively. I am not very proficient in the subject of pricing. Both platforms are performing well. If a customer is more SAP-centric, it makes sense to consider integration suite because of the predefined content. A customer will need to have SAP BTP for side-by-side application extensions. MuleSoft Composer is powerful and flexible in terms of installation options, with runtime either on cloud or fully on-premise. It is quite a popular platform. MuleSoft Composer might be less expensive than SAP integration suite, though this is an assumption as I haven't compared prices. I am accustomed to learning and studying with SAP documentation. The organization is more convenient for me, though there are plenty of documentation and resources for MuleSoft Composer as well. The context is the primary consideration. If a customer uses multiple SAP solutions, not just SAP for accounting, it makes sense to consider the integration suite due to better SAP compatibility. When SAP introduces new interface technology, integration suite will be the first to support it, while MuleSoft Composer will need time to develop new connectors. I rate this solution a six out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The monitoring module is impressive."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"I would rate the scalability of the solution at eight out of ten. We have 20 people who use Confluent in our organization now, and we hope to increase usage in the future."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"Some of the best features are that it's very quick to set up, very easy to have a centralized area that gives us a history of changes, and the ability to give feedback on any information placed onto the pages."
"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."
"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."
"MuleSoft Composer is powerful and flexible in terms of installation options, with runtime either on cloud or fully on-premise."
"The functionality of MuleSoft to connect with any database is the most important feature."
"The advantage of using MuleSoft as part as the Salesforce ecosystem is that anything new they build is guaranteed to work with the new features that are coming from the other side."
"The solution invokes some RPS from Composer and then sends emails and flat notifications. It helps us integrate with any third-party SAPE or integration tools."
"The prebuilt connectors have saved our customers a lot of time and money."
"The way Composer organizes and manages integration processes is most beneficial. We can easily monitor what's running and what isn't and troubleshoot any data integration issues."
"The product is easy to use. You don't need programming skills to use it."
 

Cons

"Confluent has fallen behind in being the tool of the industry. It's taking second place to things such as Word and SharePoint and other office tools that are more dynamic and flexible than Confluent."
"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."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"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."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"It could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful."
"The technical support team's response time must be improved."
"There are some challenges with API sharing in Composer."
"MuleSoft Composer needs to improve its interface and scalability."
"This solution could be improved by offering more integrations with other platforms."
"One additional feature they could add might be something like regional prices. Since we're based in Brazil, we pay in dollars but earn in Brazilian Real."
"I used Anypoint Studio, which is good though not very flexible."
"There is also one limitation. We cannot see logs, latencies, or request counts."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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."
"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."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"It comes with a high cost."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"Salesforce is licensed by user and by products and so pricing depending on what your requirements are."
"The tool is a bit expensive."
"MuleSoft Composer is affordable, and I rate its pricing a five to six out of ten."
"It's costly, especially for Indian clients."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
11%
Retailer
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
 

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 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 do you like most about MuleSoft Composer?
The way Composer organizes and manages integration processes is most beneficial. We can easily monitor what's running and what isn't and troubleshoot any data integration issues.
What needs improvement with MuleSoft Composer?
I used Anypoint Studio, which is good though not very flexible. It seems strange that some functionality from MuleSoft Composer is available from Eclipse and some from Visual Code. It would be bett...
 

Also Known As

No data available
MuleSoft Composer for Salesforce
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. MuleSoft Composer and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.