We performed a comparison between Confluent and Informatica PowerCenter based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Streaming Analytics solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"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."
"Informatica PowerCenter has good user feedback. The developers can easily make mappings in the solution."
"Good product if you are trying implement data quality, data integration, and data management projects."
"Complex transformations can be easily achieved by using PowerCenter. The processing layer does transformations and other things. About 80% of my transformations can be achieved by using the middle layer. For the remaining 15% to 20% transformations, I can go in and create stored procedures in the respective databases. Mapplets is the feature through which we can reuse transformations across pipelines. Transformations and caching are the key features that we have been using frequently. Informatica PowerCenter is one of the best solutions or products in the data integration space. We have extensively used PowerCenter for integration purposes. We usually look at the best bridge solution in our architecture so that it can sustain for maybe a couple of years. Usually, we go with the solution that fits best and has proven and time-tested technology."
"Once you have learned Informatica, it is very easy to use."
"The performance and design of Informatica have been very valuable. I find the performance faster than, say, Oracle Data Integrator or DataStage."
"Reusable definition of data sources and the out-of-the-box availability of a large number maplets for common transformation functions."
"Informatica PowerCenter is a very good ETL tool."
"It works with any multi-databases, so it works with Sybase, SQL Server. Also, the performance is really good and it is easy to use."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"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."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"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."
"Unstructured data handling is an important area with a shortcoming that needs improvement in the solution."
"The UI is a little outdated."
"The solution's commercial cost is very high. Other open-source tools can do the tool's functions for free. The world is moving to the cloud, but the solution hasn't updated its drivers. I presume that its downfall will start soon. The tool is trying to cross-sell or upsell without helping customers derive benefits from the existing products. They have multiple tools and licenses. It is better to bring the smaller tools in one umbrella."
"This product is going to decommission in the next couple of years."
"Its interface can be modernized. It is an old product. I have been working with it for 14 years, and it still looks the same. It hasn't been modernized much. It also needs to handle more modern formats, such as JSON files. It works with the old text files and databases, but it does not always work with the newer, modern stuff. You need to make your own programs to support that kind of stuff. Support is also a kind of difficult with Informatica. They don't do direct support and rely on using their distributors around the globe for support, which means that you kind of have to go through this layer of different companies before you get help."
"Support could be better."
"The licensing is difficult."
"If you want to transfer a ZIP file, it is a pain. You need to use Command-Line. Sometimes we just want to transfer a file. It should be easy to move them from A to B."
Confluent is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 20 reviews while Informatica PowerCenter is ranked 3rd in Data Integration with 78 reviews. Confluent is rated 8.4, while Informatica PowerCenter is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Confluent writes "Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Informatica PowerCenter writes "Stable, provides good support, and integrating it with other systems is very fast, but its pricing is expensive". Confluent is most compared with Amazon MSK, Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, AWS Glue and Oracle GoldenGate, whereas Informatica PowerCenter is most compared with Informatica Cloud Data Integration, Azure Data Factory, SSIS, Databricks and AWS Glue. See our Confluent vs. Informatica PowerCenter report.
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.
