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

Confluent vs Tray.ai comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 (7th)
Tray.ai
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Process Automation (17th), Cloud Data Integration (18th), Low-Code Development Platforms (20th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (14th)
 

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.
Amrit Dash - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation Engineer at a educational organization with 11-50 employees
Automated student enrollments have reduced manual work and now free our team for higher-value support
Tray.io is definitely a highly powerful tool, but there are three main areas that I feel could be improved. There is a steep learning curve in user accessibility; the builder is highly developer-centric, making it difficult for a non-technical team member to modify or troubleshoot workflows. Introducing a more intuitive visual interface similar to what we have in make.com right now would make the platform much more collaborative and easier to work with for any non-technical folks or newly onboarded engineers, allowing them to be briefed faster. Visual debugging is another area where troubleshooting complex nested loops can feel very abstract. Having clearer, more visual step-by-step data tracking during test runs would speed up the development and testing process. The pricing model is geared heavily towards enterprise budgets; offering more flexible mid-market pricing tiers would make it more accessible for a growing organization that wants a small start and scale up gradually. The core platform security is highly robust and easily meets our requirements for SOC 2 and GDPR compliance. However, when utilizing their AI features such as Merlin AI with sensitive student data, we maintain a very cautious approach. While Tray.io provides enterprise-grade governance guardrails and data masking capabilities, our internal compliance policies prevent us from passing any personally identifiable student information directly through AI-driven processors. We trust Tray.io's underlying infrastructure security, but we believe organizations must still enforce strict data filtering protocols on their end to ensure student privacy is maintained. During our evaluation, we tested the AI capabilities in a sandbox environment, primarily using it to generate workflow drafts and natural language prompts from web data schemas. Strength-wise, it is highly capable when it comes to translating simple text descriptions into functional workflow templates. It serves as a great accelerator, helping to map standard files quickly and reducing the initial setup time for basic integrations. For issues, in the case of highly custom APIs or deeply nested data structures, accuracy declines. We noticed occasional misinterpretation of complex schemas, meaning our developers still had to manually review and correct the outputs. It is a highly helpful productivity booster but still requires human oversight for enterprise-grade reliability.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"As an enterprise organization, data availability is critical and Confluent provides that SLA support."
"Having used SharePoint in the past, when I compare with traditional, old document repositories, like SharePoint, I would definitely recommend Confluent."
"We primarily use Confluent for service desk and task management, and it is also good for knowledge base management."
"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 monitoring module is impressive."
"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"Tray.io has positively impacted my organization by helping us keep our internal database and this third-party service in sync, and it has really helped us automate a lot of that work because it is fairly straightforward to maintain and develop."
"Tray.io has positively impacted my organization as it provides a trusted way to organize data results and share them throughout the company at once."
"Tray.io has positively impacted my organization by reducing the amount of redundant tasks that our team performs by approximately 80%, and the numbers are quite significant with the workflows alone, as we are working towards creating and utilizing AI within these workflows as well."
"Tray.io has positively impacted my organization by eliminating a lot of the manual work that we were having to do daily."
"During our three to six-month evaluation pilot, automating our student enrollment sync with Tray.io delivered proper operational improvements."
"Tray.io has positively impacted my organization by helping to manage webhooks easily and workflows easily, and it has improved collaboration so that other clients can use webhooks."
"Tray.io has drastically reduced manual bulk operations across our data solutions and integrations teams, transforming multi-step manual data compares and script executions into turn-key event-driven or scheduled workflows."
 

Cons

"The beginner who doesn't know how to work on HTML will struggle as when you create spaces in the Confluent, if you want to have some meeting notes or anything else, you need to know HTML and which HTML tags to include."
"From the control center perspective, there is a lot of room for improvement in the visualization."
"One area we've identified that could be improved is the governance and access control to the Kafka topics. We've found some limitations, like a threshold of 10,000 rules per cluster, that make it challenging to manage access at scale if we have many different data sources."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"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."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"One way Tray.io could be improved, especially for people coming in with no real coding experience, is with more comprehensive error messages."
"I have found that the error management in my main use case with Tray.io is not as effective as we would prefer."
"There is not much that can be improved in Tray.io. It is a good tool, but debug can be improved further and the solutions can be improved further."
"As our product got more complex, we needed to add more and more complexity to Tray.io in terms of our setup, and that is when the benefits of it being no-code or low-code started to pale in comparison to the cost of making everything slightly more complicated."
"Tray.io is definitely a highly powerful tool, but there are three main areas that I feel could be improved."
"I landed on that rating because we feel that it is mediocre; it does what we need it to do more often than not, but it does not impress us as it is not always reliable and hands-off."
"Native rate limit and auto-retry handling can be improved, as when hitting 429 errors or too many requests errors during high-volume API loops, Tray.io lacks native configured backoff and retry logic out-of-the-box, requiring complex custom while-loop workarounds."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"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."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"It comes with a high cost."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
921,523 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Retailer
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Construction Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise17
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise4
 

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 t...
What needs improvement with Tray.io?
Native rate limit and auto-retry handling can be improved, as when hitting 429 errors or too many requests errors during high-volume API loops, Tray.io lacks native configured backoff and retry log...
What is your primary use case for Tray.io?
Tray.io serves as the core iPaaS orchestration and data ingestion engine between our primary system and numerous external platforms such as ad servers like GAM, FreeWheel, Flitepath, Facebook, ERPs...
What advice do you have for others considering Tray.io?
My advice for others looking into using Tray.io is to modularize earlier. I recommend not building massive monolithic workflows, but rather creating single-purpose callable workflows and triggering...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Copper, DigitalOcean, Udemy, AdRoll, FICO, Outreach
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. Tray.ai and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
921,523 professionals have used our research since 2012.