We performed a comparison between Apache Pulsar and Confluent based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Databricks, Microsoft and others in Streaming Analytics."The solution operates as a classic message broker but also as a streaming platform."
"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."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"With Confluent Cloud we no longer need to handle the infrastructure and the plumbing, which is a concern for Confluent. The other advantage is that all portfolios have access to the data that is being shared."
"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"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."
"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."
"Documentation is poor because much of it is in Chinese with no English translation."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"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 could have more integration with different platforms."
"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
Apache Pulsar is ranked 12th in Streaming Analytics with 1 review while Confluent is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 20 reviews. Apache Pulsar is rated 8.0, while Confluent is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache Pulsar writes "The solution can mimic other APIs without changing a line of code". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Confluent writes "Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming ". Apache Pulsar is most compared with Apache Flink, Apache Spark Streaming, Amazon Kinesis, Amazon MSK and Azure Stream Analytics, whereas Confluent is most compared with Amazon MSK, Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, AWS Glue and Oracle GoldenGate.
See our list of best Streaming Analytics vendors.
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.