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 (3rd)
MuleSoft Composer
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (25th), Cloud Data Integration (15th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (11th)
 

Featured Reviews

PavanManepalli - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Prince Barai - PeerSpot reviewer
The prebuilt connectors save a lot of time and money, but the customer support and price must be improved
Our customer’s system is very old. We are trying to upgrade it. We are extracting data from the system and sending it to Salesforce. The product is a good option if we want to build process automation for data. It can be done quickly through the tool. We need not do coding and waste our time and efforts. The ease of learning depends on the person who is learning the product. It depends on whether they come from a developer background. It would be easy to learn if they have some experience in coding and have worked on integrations. I haven’t faced many challenges while scaling our integration solutions with MuleSoft Composer. The drag-and-drop interface has not impacted our project deployment time much. The customer support and price can be improved. Overall, I rate the tool a seven 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

"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"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."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"The client APIs are the most valuable feature."
"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 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."
"The prebuilt connectors have saved our customers a lot of time and money."
"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 functionality of MuleSoft to connect with any database is the most important feature."
"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 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 product is easy to use. You don't need programming skills to use it."
 

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."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"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."
"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."
"We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"There is also one limitation. We cannot see logs, latencies, or request counts."
"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."
"This solution could be improved by offering more integrations with other platforms."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"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."
"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 has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"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."
"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."
"It comes with a high cost."
"The tool is a bit expensive."
"MuleSoft Composer is affordable, and I rate its pricing a five to six out of ten."
"Salesforce is licensed by user and by products and so pricing depending on what your requirements are."
"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.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
No data available
 

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?
People do not appreciate that Confluent is pushing us more towards Teams because they want to use a true Microsoft Word-type format where we can format our sentences better, instead of just saying ...
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for MuleSoft Composer?
It's costly, especially for Indian clients. Reducing the price would help them penetrate the Indian market. A two-year license costs around seventy lakhs rupees. It's a considerable amount.
What needs improvement with MuleSoft Composer?
Configuration could be easier, but we were able to handle it. It seems that juniors find it challenging, but seniors like me know how to configure it properly. There are no issues. There is also on...
 

Comparisons

 

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: September 2025.
869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.