We performed a comparison between Confluent and MuleSoft Composer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"The advantage of using MuleSoft as part as the Salesforce ecosystem is that anything new they build is guaranteed to work with the new features that are coming from the other side."
"The prebuilt connectors have saved our customers a lot of time and money."
"The way Composer organizes and manages integration processes is most beneficial. We can easily monitor what's running and what isn't and troubleshoot any data integration issues."
"The product is easy to use. You don't need programming skills to use it."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"The product should integrate tools for incorporating diagrams like Lucidchart. It also needs to improve its formatting features. We also faced issues while granting permissions."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"MuleSoft Composer needs to improve its interface and scalability."
"One additional feature they could add might be something like regional prices. Since we're based in Brazil, we pay in dollars but earn in Brazilian Real."
"The technical support team's response time must be improved."
"This solution could be improved by offering more integrations with other platforms."
Confluent is ranked 4th in Streaming Analytics with 19 reviews while MuleSoft Composer is ranked 13th in Cloud Data Integration with 4 reviews. Confluent is rated 8.4, while MuleSoft Composer 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 MuleSoft Composer writes "Handles a wide variety of data sources and efficiently organizes and manages integration processes". Confluent is most compared with Amazon MSK, Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, AWS Glue and Oracle GoldenGate, whereas MuleSoft Composer is most compared with Mule Anypoint Platform, Workato, Celigo Integration Platform, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps and Zapier. See our Confluent vs. MuleSoft Composer report.
See our list of best Cloud Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Data Integration 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.