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

"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"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."
"Having used SharePoint in the past, when I compare with traditional, old document repositories, like SharePoint, I would definitely recommend Confluent."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"The system is basically user-driven, mostly operating as a local platform."
"The most valuable feature of Qlik Replicate is their change data capture feature."
"The CDC and the flexibility to use QVD as a source are the most valuable features of Qlik Replicate."
"The cost is under control with this solution, unlike other services where it's not."
"Great with replicating and updating records."
"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."
"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."
"Its capability to replicate the data without impacting the source databases performance-wise is the most useful aspect."
 

Cons

"The solution could have an extra plugin or upgrading feature. In addition, it could have more integration with different platforms and be more compatible."
"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 is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"The pricing was high for our needs. We should not have to pay for features we do not use."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"From the control center perspective, there is a lot of room for improvement in the visualization."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"Support-wise, this solution is in need of improvement."
"We'd like better connectivity."
"The disadvantage is people are not going for this license because it is not marketed properly."
"There is complexity involved in the licensing part of this system."
"I am not very comfortable with Qlik support as it often goes in loops. Even priority tickets, which should be resolved in minutes, can take days."
"Support response times could be improved as there are sometimes delays in receiving replies to support cases."
"We would like to see more details in messages about errors with the system."
"Support for this product could be better. When we do, my rating is a two out of five, because their internal support is not great."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It comes with a high cost."
"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."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"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 expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"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."
"Unlike Azure, where you pay based on consumption, Qlik Replicate seems to charge per endpoint."
"Pricing for this solution is very reasonable."
"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.
886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Retailer
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
16%
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 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.
886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.