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

Confluent vs Skyvia 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)
Skyvia
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (56th), Cloud Data Integration (26th)
 

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.
RH
CTO & Developer at a consultancy with self employed
The product works, is simple to use, and is reliable.
Error handling. This has caused me many problems in the past. When an error occurs, the event on the connection that is called does not seem to behave as documented. If I attempt a retry or opt not to display an error dialog, it does it anyway. In all fairness, I have never reported this. I think it is more important that a unique error code is passed to the error event that identifies a uniform type of error that occurred, such as ecDisconnect, eoInvalidField. It is very hard to find what any of the error codes currently passed actually mean. A list would be great for each database engine. Trying to catch an exception without displaying the UniDAC error message is impossible, no matter how you modify the parameters in the OnError of the TUniConnection object. I have already implemented the following things myself. They are suggestions rather than specific requests. Copy Datasets: This contains an abundance of redundant options. I think that a facility to copy one dataset to another in a single call would be handy. Redundancy: I am currently working on this. I have extended the TUniConnection to have an additional property called FallbackConnection. If the TUniConnection goes offline, the connection attempts to connect the FallbackConnection. If successful, it then sets the Connection properties of all live UniDatasets in the app to the FallbackConnection and re-opens them if necessary. The extended TUniConnection holds a list of datasets that were created. Each dataset is responsible for registering itself with the connection. This is a highly specific feature. It supports an offline mode that is found in mission critical/point of sale solutions. I have never seen it implement before in any DACs, but I think it is a really unique feature with a big impact. Dataset to JSON/XML: A ToSql function on a dataset that creates a full SQL Text statement with all parameters converted to text (excluding blobs) and included in the returned string. Extended TUniScript:- TMyUniScript allows me to add lines of text to a script using the normal dataset functions, Script.Append, Script.FieldByName(‘xxx’).AsString := ‘yyy’, Script.AddToScript and finally Script.Post, then Script.Commit. The AddToScript builds the SQL text statement and appends it to the script using #e above. Record Size Calculation. It would be great if UniDac could estimate the size of a particular record from a query or table. This could be used to automatically set the packet fetch/request count based on the size of the Ethernet packets on the local area network. This I believe would increase performance and reduce network traffic for returning larger datasets. I am aware that this would also be a unique feature to UniDac but would gain a massive performance enhancement. I would suggest setting the packet size on the TUniConnection which would effect all linked datasets.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"Having used SharePoint in the past, when I compare with traditional, old document repositories, like SharePoint, I would definitely recommend Confluent."
"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."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"To date, we have seen improvements in performance and scalability, so we recommend this solution."
"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."
"The biggest benefit of Confluent as a tool is that it is a distributed platform that provides more durability and stability."
"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"For what it offers, I think this solution is a must for any Delphi programmer."
 

Cons

"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"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."
"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"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."
"Error handling has caused me many problems in the past; when an error occurs, the event on the connection that is called does not seem to behave as documented."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"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."
"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."
"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 has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
894,807 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%
Performing Arts
20%
Construction Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise17
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Skyvia, Skyvia Data Integration
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Boeing, Sony, Honda, Oracle, BMW, Samsung
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Informatica, Salesforce and others in Cloud Data Integration. Updated: May 2026.
894,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.