Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Confluent vs Upsolver 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
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Upsolver
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
20th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (38th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Confluent is 8.3%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Upsolver is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

Gustavo-Barbosa Dos Santos - PeerSpot reviewer
Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming
Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance. It helps us understand the various requirements of multiple customers and validates the information for different versions. We can automate the tasks using Confluent Kafka. Thus, it guarantees us the data quality and maintains the integrity of message contracts.
Snehasish Das - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows for data to be moved across platforms and different data technologies
The most prominent feature of Upsolver is its function as an ETL tool, allowing data to be moved across platforms and different data technologies. Upsolver does this in a quick time, unlike traditional processes which are time-consuming. Additionally, it offers scalability for large volumes of data, with performance and ease of cloud-native integration.

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 that we are using is the data replication between the data centers allowing us to configure a disaster recovery or software. However, is it's not mandatory to use and because most of the features that we use are from Apache Kafka, such as end-to-end encryption. Internally, we can develop our own kind of product or service from Apache Kafka."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"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."
"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"I find Confluent's Kafka Connectors and Kafka Streams invaluable for my use cases because they simplify real-time data processing and ETL tasks by providing reliable, pre-packaged connectors and tools."
"It was easy to use and set up, with a nearly no-code interface that relied mostly on drag-and-drop functionality."
"The most prominent feature of Upsolver is its function as an ETL tool, allowing data to be moved across platforms and different data technologies."
"Customer service is excellent, and I would rate it between eight point five to nine out of ten."
 

Cons

"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."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"It could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"It could have more themes. They should also have more reporting-oriented plugins as well. It would be great to have free custom reports that can be dispatched directly from Jira."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"Upsolver excels in ETL and data aggregation, while ThoughtSpot is strong in natural language processing for querying datasets. Combining these tools can be very effective: Upsolver handles aggregation and ETL, and ThoughtSpot allows for natural language queries. There’s potential for highlighting these integrations in the future."
"There is room for improvement in query tuning."
"On the stability side, I would rate it seven out of ten. Using multiple cloud providers and data engineering technologies creates complexity, and managing different plugins is not always easy, but they are working on it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"It comes with a high cost."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"Upsolver is affordable at approximately $225 per terabyte per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Retailer
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Confluent?
I find Confluent's Kafka Connectors and Kafka Streams invaluable for my use cases because they simplify real-time data processing and ETL tasks by providing reliable, pre-packaged connectors and to...
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 am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team. The lack of easy access to the Confluent support team is also a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Upsolver?
Upsolver is affordable at approximately $225 per terabyte per year. Compared to what I know from others, it's cheaper than many other products.
What needs improvement with Upsolver?
There is room for improvement in query tuning. Upsolver could do a more in-depth analysis in employing machine power, such as CPU and memory, to enhance query performance. Furthermore, allocating C...
What is your primary use case for Upsolver?
I am working as a consultant and currently have my own consultancy services. I provide services to companies that are data-heavy and looking for data engineering solutions for their business needs....
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. Upsolver and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.