We compared Confluent and Amazon MSK based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Based on user feedback, Confluent is valued for its efficient data processing, integration capabilities, and comprehensive monitoring tools. Users appreciate its supportive customer service and mixed sentiments about cost and setup. In comparison, Amazon MSK is praised for its ease of use, scalability, reliability and competitive pricing. Areas for improvement include scalability, ease of use, and cost management.
Features: Confluent stands out with its efficient data processing, seamless integration with various systems, and comprehensive monitoring capabilities. On the other hand, Amazon MSK is praised for its ease of use, scalability, and reliability.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Confluent products has mixed sentiments among users, with some finding it manageable but others considering it complex. On the other hand, Amazon MSK offers an easy setup process without any additional costs, making it a more convenient option., Confluent's product has a strong ROI according to user feedback, while Amazon MSK users reported positive outcomes and benefits, indicating high value and effectiveness.
Room for Improvement: Confluent could improve the user interface, simplify setup, provide better documentation, enhance system responsiveness, and speed for seamless data streaming and processing. Amazon MSK should focus on scalability, ease of use, cost management, and offer a more intuitive interface, flexible pricing models, and better scalability options.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews for Confluent and Amazon MSK regarding the duration required to establish a new tech solution vary greatly. Users' experiences with Confluent range from three months for deployment and one week for setup, while there is no information available for Amazon MSK., Confluent's customer service is highly regarded, with prompt and efficient support. Users appreciate the knowledgeable and friendly staff, resolving issues effectively. In contrast, Amazon MSK receives positive comments for its excellent customer service and support.
The summary above is based on 16 interviews we conducted recently with Confluent and Amazon MSK users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It is a stable product."
"It offers good stability."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon MSK is the integration."
"Amazon MSK has good integration because our team has been undergoing significant changes. Coupling it with MSK within AWS is helpful. We don't have to set up additionals or monitor external environments. This"
"Amazon MSK has significantly improved our organization by building seamless integration between systems."
"MSK has a private network that's an out-of-box feature."
"Overall, it is very cost-effective based on the workflow."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."
"It does not autoscale. Because if you do keep it manually when you add a note to the cluster and then you register it, then it is scalable, but the fact that you have to go and do it, I think, makes it, again, a bit of some operational overhead when managing the cluster."
"It should be more flexible, integration-wise."
"Amazon MSK could improve on the features they offer. They are still lagging behind Confluence."
"The configuration seems a little complex and the documentation on the product is not available."
"It would be really helpful if Amazon MSK could provide a single installation that covers all the servers."
"The product's schema support needs enhancement. It will help enhance integration with many kinds of languages of programming languages, especially for environments using languages like .NET."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"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."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
Amazon MSK is ranked 6th in Streaming Analytics with 7 reviews while Confluent is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 21 reviews. Amazon MSK is rated 7.2, while Confluent is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon MSK writes "Streamlines our processes, and we don't need to configure any VPCs; it's automatic". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Confluent writes "Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming ". Amazon MSK is most compared with Azure Stream Analytics, Amazon Kinesis, Google Cloud Dataflow, Apache Flink and Aiven for Apache Kafka, whereas Confluent is most compared with Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, AWS Glue, Oracle GoldenGate and Fivetran. See our Amazon MSK vs. Confluent report.
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.