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

Confluent vs Qlik Replicate 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)
Qlik Replicate
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

Confluent and Qlik Replicate aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Confluent is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 6.9%, down 8.6% compared to last year.
Qlik Replicate, on the other hand, focuses on Data Integration, holds 1.6% mindshare, down 3.0% since last year.
Streaming Analytics Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Confluent6.9%
Apache Flink10.9%
Databricks9.0%
Other73.2%
Streaming Analytics
Data Integration Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Qlik Replicate1.6%
SSIS3.6%
Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud (IDMC)3.6%
Other91.2%
Data Integration
 

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.
SW
Solution Architect at Predoole Analytics
Real-time data synchronization faces challenges with monitoring and affordability
The user-friendly interface in Qlik Replicate simplifies configuration and management of replication tasks because it is based on GUI, and users don't have to write any scripts. It is entirely drag and drop functionality. Even with zero knowledge of scripting, users can effectively use Qlik Replicate. The most valuable feature of Qlik Replicate is their change data capture feature. As soon as data is entered into the source, it gets captured at target locations. This occurs in near real-time, with replication happening within seconds at the target location. Additionally, whatever operations are performed at the source, whether adding data, deleting data, or updating anything, it gets replicated at target locations. It functions as data injection from source to target, ensuring all operations performed on the source system are replicated on target systems.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The biggest benefit of Confluent as a tool is that it is a distributed platform that provides more durability and stability."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"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."
"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."
"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"A valuable feature of Qlik Replicate is that you do not need ETL. It's easy to use—you choose two systems and it automatically replicates them. Even if there is no CDC available, if you insert it and update it, and there is nothing to find out, then you can use Qlik Replicate. It's a good product."
"The system is basically user-driven, mostly operating as a local platform."
"It's very user-friendly when it comes to settings and configuration. It also offers very detailed logging about warnings and errors."
"We use Qlik Replicate to change data capture of databases in production environments."
"The cost is under control with this solution, unlike other services where it's not."
"The most valuable feature of Qlik Replicate is their change data capture feature."
"A pretty good series of connectors is one of the best features of Qlik Replicate."
"It enables us to transform data at the latest stage rather than in ETL loads, so it's more ELT which is one of the advantages. It is also in near real-time, which brings significant advantage for our embedded analytics approach."
 

Cons

"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."
"I am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"Support response times could be improved as there are sometimes delays in receiving replies to support cases."
"Some features on the graphical user interface are clunky."
"This product could be improved by providing more insight regarding errors. One of our customers that uses Qlik Replicate has had an issue. We tried to debug it, but we could not trace the error message. The infrastructure site should give us more insight about errors. Qlik Replicate is not a business solution, it's an IT solution. The reporting tools and bug site should be improved."
"The UI and data version control can be improved."
"We would like to see more details in messages about errors with the system."
"There is complexity involved in the licensing part of this system."
"It's not possible to replicate the QVC files in data analytics."
"The disadvantage is people are not going for this license because it is not marketed properly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"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."
"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 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."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"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."
"Pricing for this solution is very reasonable."
"Unlike Azure, where you pay based on consumption, Qlik Replicate seems to charge per endpoint."
"Qlik Replicate is not expensive, compared to GoldenGate."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate Qlik Replicate's pricing a nine out of ten."
"Overall, Qlik is an expensive solution. You need to pay for all additional features that you would like to use."
"Qlik Replicate is mainly suited for large companies. However, it is too costly for small businesses. Its pricing is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
883,089 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Retailer
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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 Business9
Large Enterprise11
 

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 Qlik Replicate?
The main valuable feature is its real-time change data capture (CDC) capabilities, which process data with minimal latency. There is not much delay. It also performs well with batch-wise data appli...
What needs improvement with Qlik Replicate?
In terms of handling diverse data sources, Qlik Replicate does exhibit certain shortcomings.Other areas of Qlik Replicate that could be improved include its ability to serve as a single point tool,...
What is your primary use case for Qlik Replicate?
My usual use cases for Qlik Replicate involve my previous organization and my current organization. I can provide my current experience. As an Australian energy provider, we have a lot of operation...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Replicate, Qlik Replicate
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
American Cancer Society, Fanzz, SM Retail, Smart Modular, Tangerine Bank, Wellcare
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. Qlik Replicate and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
883,089 professionals have used our research since 2012.