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

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 (6th)
MuleSoft Composer
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (37th), Cloud Data Integration (17th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (15th)
 

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

"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"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."
"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"Confluent is an amazing tool that is highly configurable, integrates very well with Jira, and lets you create nice documentation for various products while also supporting reporting and online content hosting."
"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."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided; they're leading the market in this category."
"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."
"If you are a Salesforce customer, it is best for you to use Composer because you're going to remain in the same ecosystem."
"The prebuilt connectors have saved our customers a lot of time and money."
"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."
"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."
"MuleSoft Composer is powerful and flexible in terms of installation options, with runtime either on cloud or fully on-premise."
 

Cons

"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"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."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"There is also one limitation. We cannot see logs, latencies, or request counts."
"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."
"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."
"This solution could be improved by offering more integrations with other platforms."
"I used Anypoint Studio, which is good though not very flexible."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"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."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"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."
"It comes with a high cost."
"MuleSoft Composer is affordable, and I rate its pricing a five to six out of ten."
"It's costly, especially for Indian clients."
"The tool is a bit expensive."
"Salesforce is licensed by user and by products and so pricing depending on what your requirements are."
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%
Healthcare Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

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 Business3
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
 

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 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: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.