Confluent Reviews

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 developers, we can use Kafka Streams, whereas KSQL is a product developed by Confluent that allows us not to write much code, just using SQL syntax queries. This helps in creating windows, joins between two topics, taking data live from the topic, and then applying conditions. We can write rules that are helpful for use cases such as anti-money laundering and fraud detection; for these kinds of use cases, we use KSQL.

Confluent is the best choice for use cases such as log streaming, log aggregations, or IoT data where message loss isn't critical due to its high throughput capabilities. Some organizations even use it for payments because it has transaction features. Based on business goals and expected SLAs and MTTR, it needs to be evaluated carefully.

The features I find most useful in Confluent are the Multi-Region Cluster, MRC, and the Cluster Linking for replication. In a Multi-Region Cluster, a single cluster can be stretched across multiple data centers, which provides a high availability and resilient platform. It survives even if a data center goes down, and the cluster still survives. This avoids a lot of manual intervention, and even during HA/DR activities, it automatically enables customers from the other side to seamlessly continue their publishing and consuming.

Confluent offers the hybrid cloud model, which integrates cloud services and on-premises data, allowing customers to directly use their own services without needing to maintain hardware or infrastructure, thus avoiding significant CAPEX and OPEX costs. We use it on-prem because of the financial data we have, the security needed, and the compliance standards. We have integrations where Confluent has another component called connectors, allowing us to connect with more than 200 different sources, such as databases, big data, and cloud services, through configuration-based integrations without writing a lot of code. That was already baked by Confluent and its respective golden partners.

The biggest benefit of Confluent as a tool is that it is a distributed platform that provides more durability and stability.

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.

I have been working with Confluent for almost seven years.

Confluent is a scalable solution; it's easy to add more brokers into an existing cluster, which allows for onboarding more customers and creating more topics.

I have contacted Confluent support, utilizing the Platinum support, and I find it good. I would rate the support a nine.

Positive

My overall rating for Confluent is eight out of ten.

I am a Jira administrator, and I administer Confluent. I take care of many DevOps tools within the QSS organization. My group primarily works with Jira and Confluent, and Microsoft Teams-related tools from an operations point of view.

A lot of our Confluent drives many of our software design requirements. Our software processes are utilized within that tool. Our release checklists for release engineering are performed in that particular tool, which serves as a documentation repository for software requirements, basically the URL links to them. Engineering documents such as schematics are uploaded into the Jira tools. General use for conveying how a feature works and how it's tested is done there. We use several add-ons, from draw.io type options to forms, to several other calendar plugins to track people's times on vacations, timelines, etc.

ADI manufactures silicon chips, and my group is responsible for the software that drives those chips.

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. The ability to change forms and create documents that people can view from those Confluent pages is also a notable feature.

Confluent drives many of our software design requirements. Our software processes are utilized within that tool. Our release checklists for release engineering are performed in that particular tool, which serves as a documentation repository for software requirements, basically the URL links to them. Engineering documents such as schematics are uploaded into the Jira tools. General use for conveying how a feature works and how it's tested is done there. We use several add-ons, from draw.io type options to forms, to several other calendar plugins to track people's times on vacations, timelines, etc.

People do not appreciate that Confluent is pushing us more towards Teams because they want to use a true Microsoft Word-type format where we can format our sentences better, instead of just saying 'paragraph' or just having headers. They want to be able to change fonts, change the size of the wording to make it easier to format, and have better color coding of the documents. We need a better way of creating the hierarchies within the pages. Sometimes it's very difficult to find information in the tree-structured setup.

Word documents and dealing with SharePoint are easier from a project management point of view because that's where many of us are moving towards now. Confluent has potential if it would be easier to cut and paste things into and to export information into industry-standard documents. We run into formatting problems when we cut and paste things in or when we're pulling things out. Tables are difficult to cut and paste or bring back in.

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. We still see its place, but it's not as significant as it was 10 years ago.

I have been dealing with Confluent for at least 12 to 15 years.

I didn't set it up because it's set up as a data center operation through clusters. I'm not sure that our individuals or groups that did it were doing it the most efficient way. I don't know if that's because they felt they had difficulties with it or they just did a default install and never really tried to find ways to optimize it and make it more efficient.

Regarding stability, we've only seen Confluent go offline and require restart approximately three times in six years. From an uptime point of view, it seems to be fairly stable.

There are over 27,000 people now within ADI, and we've been growing rapidly over the last six years. There are days that it really does start to slow down. Sometimes it depends upon how many people are working on it. I can't say if that's because of the clusters they're on or if that is due to the fact that the tool is memory-hungry or processing-hungry.

We only use the on-premise version, so I don't know anything about the cloud premises these days. I know that we were using cloud in my early days, but it lacked many of the feature sets that are available today. Today, we use the data center; everything is on-prem here at ADI due to our engineering confidentiality requirements.

It's okay from an integration point of view personally, but trying to transfer information, when we're trying to get data from our Jira systems into Confluent, is a bit cumbersome. It would be nice if the interface was the same as Jira, or if all we had to do was point to the rich filters and point to the various pages that are within Jira and just have it show up in Confluent as a page. Some of those things are a bit cumbersome to deal with right now.

We have used the SQL functions, but I don't care for it personally. It's easier for me to use Microsoft SQL and then use Grafana for any data analytics and just create the dashboards there.

I would rate Confluent a seven out of ten simply because it's falling behind the technology and where competing products now are going. I think they need to redesign and improve the overall user interface.

We are not resellers. We are just an end-user.

We use Confluent for managing Kafka. We utilize it extensively across all teams in our organization.

We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party. Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively.

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 problem. If it were a homegrown solution, it might have been easier to manage.

Around one year.

There are stability issues since sometimes Kafka is down. I would rate the stability as seven out of ten.

Scalability is good, but they charge a lot for scaling. Hence, while scalability is not a problem, the associated costs are concerning.

Sometimes it's harder to reach the Confluent team, and resolving issues takes a long time. I would rate their support as six out of ten.

Neutral

They charge a lot for scaling, which makes it expensive.

I would not recommend it due to the issues faced and believe it's not worth the money. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten.

We use the product to store and govern the data.

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.

The product's most valuable feature is the real-time data streaming capabilities.

Confluent's price needs improvement.

We have been using Confluent for two years.

I rate the platform's stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the platform's scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support services are good. We had a lot of meetings with their team. Each time, they help us resolve the questions.

We used AWS MSK before.

Confluent can be deployed on the cloud.

We take assistance solution architects from Confluent for implementation as the setup process is complicated for larger infrastructures.

It is too early to state about return on investment. However, the product is saving us money at the moment.

Confluent has a higher price than MSK. However, it delivers better features for tech stack requirements. For instance, its superior integration capabilities have proven essential, particularly in bridging technologies like microservices written in .NET.

We explored the serverless version of MSK and solutions like HubSpot.

I rate Confluent a nine out of ten. We use the product for troubleshooting and data quality control. It is the best tool at present.

It is used for various aspects of software development and documentation, including requirements gathering, and testing - both functional and unit, as well as managing customer-generated tickets. It is also employed for ticket resolution, defining software requirements, and aiding in software development planning. For the planning aspects, it is often integrated with Jira, a popular project management and issue-tracking tool. It also plays a role in defining and executing software workflows triggered by Jira tickets, ensuring that necessary activities are carried out efficiently and in a structured manner.

The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation. It offers plugins and components that enable the inclusion of diagrams, making it possible to create workflow diagrams, software architecture visuals, and various other types of diagrams using tools such as draw.io. It provides additional functionalities like table creation, master tables, customizable section headers with collapsible sections, and the ability to tag users for reviews, allowing for collaborative and responsive editing. Another noteworthy feature is the ease with which documents can be published. Documents can be readily shared, and Confluent allows for the convenient download of documents in PDF or Word format, making them accessible to external stakeholders and users who are offline. It also excels in revision management, meticulously tracking all changes made to documents. This detailed version history includes the initial document creation date and documents the evolution and alterations over time.

One of the challenges lies in Access Management, particularly when you need to share documents with an external audience, such as customers. Currently, it is more suited for in-house usage, and it doesn't readily support collaborative document sharing with external parties. As a workaround, many resort to using other platforms like Slack to create user IDs and facilitate interactions with external stakeholders, even integrating tools like Canvas for this purpose. Its integration with Microsoft documentation is not as robust as desired. 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.

I have been using it for almost six years now.

The system is generally stable, except for Azure-related issues related to bug fixes and patching which may be attributed to the way Oracle has implemented the system, especially considering the integrations with Oracle documents for internal collaboration. These integrations pose challenges in terms of ensuring tighter integration with bug fixes and maintenance, so, occasional downtime occurs on weekends, and it's typical to have a system upgrade at least once every quarter to address these issues.

Scalability is a complex challenge, primarily due to custom integrations that result in increased maintenance requirements. For instance, when adding a PowerPoint document as an attachment or implementing various custom plugins and integrations, it becomes evident that Slack and Confluent demand more frequent maintenance and upgrades to ensure smooth operation. We have a minimum of over ten thousand users.

It primarily involves the IT team within our organization handling support issues. They are responsible for resolving the problems and typically serve as an intermediary between us and external companies.

When comparing Confluent and Teams documentation, Teams benefits from its integration with Microsoft products, but this can also lead to challenges. Confluent offers flexibility with tools like Draw.io and Broader Duo for creating diagrams and workflows, while Teams requires separate licenses, which can be expensive. Confluent provides more freedom for creating content and handling attachments. Teams excels in its tight integration with Outlook, streamlining message and ticket routing.

The access is typically granted through either SSO or user credentials. The setup process involves installing Confluent on a designated server, often with an enterprise-specific server number. This installation and configuration are typically managed by the internal IT team within the organization.

The deployment process is quite comprehensive, involving a team of around thirty to forty individuals who collectively support various aspects of the system. This support spans from product management and development to operationalization. Maintenance is a significant concern, with frequent updates, patches, and bug fixes being implemented, often during weekends. There is a need for patching and upgrades roughly every month, occurring three to four times per month. The operationalization aspect involves managing support tickets and requires the involvement of about twenty to thirty individuals.

It comes with a high cost.

It is particularly valuable when you have a larger user base, a broader audience, or a substantial number of collaborators. It's well-suited for facilitating extensive collaboration and documentation needs. However, for smaller teams or individuals, Confluent might be overkill and cost-prohibitive, as it is primarily designed for enterprise-level users. In such cases, tools like GitHub Pages may be more appropriate for creating user or software documentation. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We use it for internal communication. Before Confluent, we shared documentation through our work. But with Confluent, we simply create different folders for different purposes. 

It's very easy. I can create a page and share it with others. For development, we use the "one way to page" key point feature, which makes development super easy and quick.

Another interesting aspect is that multiple people can modify the same page simultaneously. If you click edit, you'll see other people's initials moving around. It's quite funny.

The benefit is escaping email communication. Sometimes people ignore emails or put them into spam, but with Confluence, everyone sees the same text at the same time. 

Previously, we used email to update, for example, about a new version coming out. But people get bombarded with emails every day, and if you miss one, you might miss important information. With Confluence, we can create a page, and everyone can see the current, up-to-date text.

We can register to a page and receive email notifications whenever someone modifies it. Because we have Jenkins monitoring the feature page, we can search for key information and trigger a preference when updates occur. Based on the Confluent web page, we have set up automated pipeline runs.

Confluence is easy to use and modify. However, sometimes there are too many pages. We have to reorganize the folder or parent account. Since everyone can create a page, the same knowledge might be created in multiple places by different people. This leads to redundancy and makes it difficult to find information. It's not centralized. 

So it could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful. 

It's very easy to use, so everyone can create knowledge. But it would be good to synchronize and organize that information a bit better. 

Another improvement would be in Confluence search. You can search for keywords, but it's not like AI, not even ChatGPT or OpenAI. It would be nice to get more relevant or organized answers. If you're outside the company, you just get some titles containing the keyword you input. But if Confluence were like a database, you could input something and get a well-organized search offering from multiple pages.

I have been using it for seven years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. There is room for improvement because it's the permission or login—it's linked to Jira. If Jira is stuck, then Confluence is stuck. It's not a standalone solution.

It's pretty stable. Very stable.

We just go to the team directly if there's any issue. Sometimes they will email Atlassian support for special cases.

We used different solutions, but they were not as powerful as Confluence.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's very quick. Moreover, it's very easy for newcomers to learn how to use it.

One person is enough for the deployment.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. That's a great tool for sharing knowledge, internal communication, or tracking issues.

I use it every day. The first thing I do is Open Jenkins, Open JIRA, and open Confluent. It is part of my workday.

The solution is used for data pipelines.

The monitoring module is impressive. We can monitor all the topics and events. It is quite powerful. The solution has connectors for almost everything. It is a mature product.

The professional services team must be improved. There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia. Whenever we require some implementation, we use the professional service. We used it in only one project, but the service wasn’t good. The team doesn’t have a local presence, and they do not understand our culture. It's not a technology issue. It's a service issue. The solution is not compatible with IBM Power. It caused an issue for us.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight or nine out of ten.

Our customers are banks and government organizations. I rate the tool’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

We only had minor issues.

Positive

The ease of setup is extremely relative. What is easy for us can be difficult for others. The setup is slightly easier than IBM. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten.

I rate the pricing a six or seven out of ten. The solution is cheaper than other products.

We are partners. People who want to use the product must ensure the tool's compatibility with the infrastructure used at the customer’s site. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for wiki to share information with the spaces. For example, we have an idea that supports the developer team, so we create spaces to share the documentation. We have access to some data.

We're using the basic Confluent setup. The troubleshooting access control is an important feature. You can determine user access and the Jira integration.

More instructions should be included. It should guide the people to build the site in an easy way because when you ramp up conference spaces, people start making an effort with, domain providers. Easy project management tools could be added.

I have been using Confluent for three years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

30 users are using this solution. We might increase the usage, but it depends on the cost.

I rate the solution’s scalability a six out of ten.

Deployment is instant. When you have to do it on the cloud, you just buy the license and it is ready to go.

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The product is expensive.

I rate the product’s pricing a six out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

Be careful while using Confluent. It's easy to get into a messy state in the IRR space if you try to do too much without thinking.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Since Confluent is integrated with Jira, we use it to keep our key documentation, including product development and LLD design documents. We also use Confluent to support or track the progress of the different work items spent or released.

One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira. Once you put the right URL, it gives you the live status, which is quite useful.

The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful.

I have been using Confluent for more than 10 years.

Confluent is quite a stable solution. The solution goes down very rarely when there is some maintenance activity on the Jira site.

Since Confluent is on the cloud, it's very scalable. Approximately more than 200 users are using Confluent in our company.

We use Confluent's technical support whenever it is down, and their technical support is quite good.

Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis. The solution's cost should be reduced for a small or mid-segment company.

Confluent is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Once you are in product development and want to use it in integration with Jira, Confluent is very, very useful.

Overall, I rate Confluent a nine out of ten.

The solution is being used for data integration. 

The client APIs are the most valuable feature. 

It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added.

I have been using Confluent for five years. 

There are some stability issues which may pop up. If you go to the customer support, they can not answer immediately, and they can not solve the issue immediately. The stability of the solution is a seven out of ten. 

The vertical scalability of Confluent is easy but the horizontal scalability is complex. There are twenty five to thirty technical users. 

If one is trying the initial setup just for practice then the deployment takes fifteen minutes to half and hour, but for a project-specific setup takes longer as a lot of things need consideration. 

For the deployment, one needs to download their business and then setup the operating system on the DLP version. 

Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three year contract and it was very costly for us. 

The AI based projects are well carried out in events as they are event based. 

Overall, it is a reliable solution. I rate the solution a seven out of ten.