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

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 6.5%, down 8.6% compared to last year.
Qlik Replicate, on the other hand, focuses on Data Integration, holds 1.5% mindshare, down 3.0% since last year.
Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Confluent6.5%
Apache Flink9.8%
Databricks8.2%
Other75.5%
Streaming Analytics
Data Integration Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qlik Replicate1.5%
Informatica Intelligent Data Management Cloud (IDMC)3.5%
SSIS3.5%
Other91.5%
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 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."
"We primarily use Confluent for service desk and task management, and it is also good for knowledge base management."
"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."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"The features I find most useful in Confluent are the Multi-Region Cluster, MRC, and the Cluster Linking for replication."
"Great with replicating and updating records."
"From a technical perspective, this is an excellent product."
"Low-priced reporting and analytics solution, with good scalability and stability. It has on-premises and cloud versions that are cohesive and can integrate well."
"It is only meant to capture data from the log files, get the data, and transfer it, read that table structure, create the table structure, and transfer the data whenever there is a change."
"The system is basically user-driven, mostly operating as a local platform."
"It implements new real-time capabilities for data ingestion, works in hybrid mode that is a hybrid cloud, is very good, and it looks like it has very good performance, so we're quite happy."
"It's very user-friendly when it comes to settings and configuration. It also offers very detailed logging about warnings and errors."
"The cost is under control with this solution, unlike other services where it's not."
 

Cons

"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"There is a limitation when it comes to seamlessly importing Microsoft documents into Confluent pages, which can be inconvenient for users who frequently work with Microsoft Office tools and need to transition their content to Confluent."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"The pricing was high for our needs. We should not have to pay for features we do not use."
"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."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"From the control center perspective, there is a lot of room for improvement in the visualization."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"Support-wise, this solution is in need of improvement."
"We'd like better connectivity."
"Support response times could be improved as there are sometimes delays in receiving replies to support cases."
"When you remote into it the Qlik Replicate UI a lot of times it just freezes. We set up the EC2, to allow them to go to the server and click on the Replicate icon, it just opens up and just sits there. At that point, we have to go into the EC2 and then reboot the server. This should be fixed, it is frustrating."
"Support for this product is not great. It needs to be improved."
"Some features can also be overly dependent on each other. So, there is room for improvement."
"Some features on the graphical user interface are clunky."
"This product could be improved by providing more insight regarding errors. We tried to debug it, but we could not trace the error message."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"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."
"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 an expensive solution."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"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."
"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."
"Qlik Replicate is mainly suited for large companies. However, it is too costly for small businesses. Its pricing is high."
"Qlik Replicate is not expensive, compared to GoldenGate."
"Overall, Qlik is an expensive solution. You need to pay for all additional features that you would like to use."
"Pricing for this solution is very reasonable."
"Unlike Azure, where you pay based on consumption, Qlik Replicate seems to charge per endpoint."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
892,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Retailer
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
10%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

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 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 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: April 2026.
892,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.