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."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon MSK is the integration."
"Overall, it is very cost-effective based on the workflow."
"Amazon MSK has significantly improved our organization by building seamless integration between systems."
"It offers good stability."
"MSK has a private network that's an out-of-box feature."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"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."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"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."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"It should be more flexible, integration-wise."
"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 would be really helpful if Amazon MSK could provide a single installation that covers all the servers."
"Amazon MSK could improve on the features they offer. They are still lagging behind Confluence."
"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."
"The configuration seems a little complex and the documentation on the product is not available."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"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."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"Currently, in the early stages, I see a gap on the security side. If you are using the SaaS version, we would like to get a fuller, more secure solution that can be adopted right out of the box. Confluence could do a better job sharing best practices or a reusable pattern that others have used, especially for companies that can not afford to hire professional services from Confluent."
"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."
Amazon MSK is ranked 6th in Streaming Analytics with 6 reviews while Confluent is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 19 reviews. Amazon MSK is rated 7.2, while Confluent is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Amazon MSK writes "Efficient real-time transaction tracking but time-consuming installation". 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 Amazon Kinesis, Azure Stream Analytics, 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.