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 design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"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."
"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."
"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"Documentation is poor because much of it is in Chinese with no English translation."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"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 has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"It could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful."
"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."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
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.