Confluent vs Striim comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Confluent
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Striim
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
25th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (91st), Cloud Data Integration (39th)
 

Market share comparison

As of June 2024, in the Streaming Analytics category, the market share of Confluent is 8.3% and it decreased by 30.8% compared to the previous year. The market share of Striim is 0.1% and it decreased by 78.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Streaming Analytics
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
Data Integration
0.2%
Cloud Data Integration
0.4%
 

Featured Reviews

LY
Apr 21, 2023
Is scalable and has storage clearance features
We collect service log data with Confluent and use it for fraud detection in game services We are a game service company, and Confluent has helped us improve our quality of service. The Schema Registry service could be improved. I would like a bigger knowledge base of other use cases and more…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"The pricing model of Confluent could improve because if you have a classic use case where you're going to use all the features there is no plan to reduce the features. You should be able to pick and choose basic services at a reduced price. The pricing was high for our needs. We should not have to pay for features we do not use."
"Confluence's pricing is quite reasonable, with a cost of around $10 per user that decreases as the number of users increases. Additionally, it's worth noting that for teams of up to 10 users, the solution is completely free."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
18%
Retailer
11%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Confluent?
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 to...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Confluent?
I would rate the pricing of Confluent as average, around a five out of ten. Additional costs could include features like multi-tenancy support and native encryption with custom algorithms, which wo...
What needs improvement with Confluent?
Confluence is easy to use and modify. However, sometimes there are too many pages. We have to reorganize the folder or parent account. Since everyone can create a page, the same knowledge might be ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Striim Platform
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Sky, UPS, MACY'S, EMAAR, HSBC
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Databricks, Microsoft and others in Streaming Analytics. Updated: May 2024.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.