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.
"Amazon MSK has significantly improved our organization by building seamless integration between systems."
"It is a stable product."
"Overall, it is very cost-effective based on the workflow."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon MSK is the integration."
"It offers good stability."
"MSK has a private network that's an out-of-box feature."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"It should be more flexible, integration-wise."
"Amazon MSK could improve on the features they offer. They are still lagging behind Confluence."
"It would be really helpful if Amazon MSK could provide a single installation that covers all the servers."
"The configuration seems a little complex and the documentation on the product is not available."
"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 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."
"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."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"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."
Amazon MSK is ranked 6th in Streaming Analytics with 6 reviews while Confluent is ranked 3rd 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, Aiven for Apache Kafka and Apache Pulsar, whereas Confluent is most compared with Amazon Kinesis, Databricks, AWS Glue, Oracle GoldenGate and Aiven for Apache Kafka. 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.
