We performed a comparison between Confluent and SAS Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Streaming Analytics solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"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."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ease of access to the data in those databases."
"The most valuable feature is you have native access to the external databases."
"The most valuable part of SAS/ACCESS is what it is made for: connecting to remote systems that are not part of your physical SAS environment."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"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."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"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."
"The product should integrate tools for incorporating diagrams like Lucidchart. It also needs to improve its formatting features. We also faced issues while granting permissions."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"The solution can provide access to the newer databases that come out sooner."
"The pricing model needs to be reconsidered and adjusted."
"I can't really recall any missing feature or general improvement that is needed. We don't really add too many new kinds of databases and therefore our needs are already met."
Confluent is ranked 3rd in Streaming Analytics with 19 reviews while SAS Access is ranked 42nd in Data Integration with 3 reviews. Confluent is rated 8.4, while SAS Access is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Confluent writes "Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAS Access writes "The solution is stable, scalable, and flexible". Confluent is most compared with Amazon MSK, Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, AWS Glue and Oracle GoldenGate, whereas SAS Access is most compared with Delphix, SSIS, Zapier and Toad Data Point. See our Confluent vs. SAS Access report.
We monitor all Streaming Analytics reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.