Aiven Platform vs Confluent comparison

Read 25 Confluent reviews

4,827 Views
2,607 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

Aiven Platform

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Aiven Platform and Confluent based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Streaming Analytics solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Aiven Platform vs. Confluent Report (Updated: April 2026).

Aiven Platform vs. Confluent

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 890,088 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Aiven Platform

Ranking in Streaming Analytics

18th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Confluent

Ranking in Streaming Analytics

5th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Aiven Platform is 2.3%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Confluent is 6.5%, down from 8.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Confluent	6.5%
Aiven Platform	2.3%
Other	91.2%

Streaming Analytics

Featured Reviews

njadm

CTO and Co-Founder at PeerSpot

Seamlessly handle database upgrades and minimize downtime disruptions

One of the most valuable features of Aiven Platform is that it handles the upgrades for us seamlessly, saving us time that would be spent on routine upgrades. It also provides reliable backups. The ability to minimize disruption during upgrades is very important since any database downtime would mean system-wide disruptions.

Read full review

PavanManepalli

AVP - Sr Middleware Messaging Integration Engineer at Wells Fargo

Has supported streaming use cases across data centers and simplifies fraud analytics with SQL-based processing

I recommend that Confluent should improve its solution to keep up with competitors in the market, such as Solace and other upcoming tools such as NATS. Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools. They need to improve in that direction by not only reducing costs but also providing better solutions for the problems customers face to avoid frustrations, whether through future enhancement requests or ensuring product stability. The cost should be worked on, and they should provide better solutions for customers. Solutions should focus on hierarchical topics; if a customer has different types of data and sources, they should be able to send them to the same place for analytics. Currently, Confluent requires everything to send to the same topic, which becomes very large and makes running analytics difficult. The hierarchy of topics should be improved. This part is available in MQ and other products such as Solace, but it is missing in Confluent, leading many in capital markets and trading to switch to Solace. In terms of stability, it is not the stability itself that needs improvement but rather the delivery semantics. Other products offer exactly-once delivery out of the box, whereas Confluent states it will offer this but lacks the knobs or levers for tuning configurations effectively. Confluent has hundreds of configurations that application teams must understand, which creates a gap. Users are often unaware of what values to set for better performance or to achieve exactly-once semantics, making it difficult to navigate through them. Delivery semantics also need to be worked on.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"What I like best about the tool is that the process for the services is faster compared to other methods. It's easier to use because Aiven for Apache Kafka handles the maintenance, so we have less to manage. We only use Kafka to manage its connectivity."

"One of the most valuable features of Aiven Platform is that it handles the upgrades for us seamlessly, saving us time that would be spent on routine upgrades."

"With Confluent Cloud we no longer need to handle the infrastructure and the plumbing, which is a concern for Confluent, and the other advantage is that all portfolios have access to the data that is being shared."

"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."

"Having used SharePoint in the past, when I compare with traditional, old document repositories, like SharePoint, I would definitely recommend Confluent."

"As an enterprise organization, data availability is critical and Confluent provides that SLA support."

"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."

"The monitoring module is impressive."

"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."

"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."

More Confluent pros

Cons

"I would really like to see Aiven Platform add a user interface for database backups, as this would eliminate the need for a third-party solution."

"One challenge we face is when we want to update the version, for example, from 3.6 to 3.7. It will spawn new nodes, and then there's rebalancing and syncing from other brokers. There's high CPU usage during this process, so the solution can't be used for a while, causing some downtime in our services. To tackle this challenge, we schedule maintenance updates during low-traffic periods when there's less risk and fewer users use the services."

"I am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."

"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."

"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."

"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."

"Confluent's price needs improvement."

"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."

"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."

"It could have more themes. The themes in the version I'm using are very limited; they offer two to three themes."

More Confluent cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"Confluent is highly priced."

"Confluent is an expensive solution."

"Regarding pricing, I think Confluent is a premium product, but it's hard for me to say definitively if it's overly expensive. We're still trying to understand if the features and reduced maintenance complexity justify the cost, especially as we scale our platform 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 has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."

"It comes with a high cost."

"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."

"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."

More Confluent pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

890,088 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Construction Company

12%

Media Company

Financial Services Firm

16%

Retailer

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	16

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Aiven for Apache Kafka?

I would really like to see Aiven Platform add a user interface for database backups, as this would eliminate the need for a third-party solution. Additionally, the customer service could be more re...

What is your primary use case for Aiven for Apache Kafka?

Our primary use case is having our PostgreSQL and MySQL databases hosted by Aiven Platform. They serve as our production databases.

What advice do you have for others considering Aiven for Apache Kafka?

In our experience, we encountered issues with Aiven Platform's connection to Redis. It was not smooth, and though we like the solution overall, we are hesitant about using Redis integration again. ...

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Confluent?

They charge a lot for scaling, which makes it expensive.

What needs improvement with Confluent?

What is your primary use case for Confluent?

The main use cases for Confluent are log aggregation and streaming. I'm familiar with Confluent stream processing with KSQL. KSQL helps in terms of data analytics strategies because if we are the d...

Azure Stream Analytics vs Aiven Platform

Comparisons

Compared 22% of the time

Amazon MSK vs Aiven Platform

Compared 19% of the time

Gigaspaces Smart Cache vs Aiven Platform

Compared 11% of the time

Apache Spark Streaming vs Aiven Platform

Compared 10% of the time

Qlik Talend Cloud vs Aiven Platform

Compared 6% of the time

More Aiven Platform Competitors

Palantir Foundry vs Confluent

Compared 12% of the time

Amazon Kinesis vs Confluent

Compared 7% of the time

Apache Flink vs Confluent

Compared 7% of the time

Databricks vs Confluent

Compared 7% of the time

Apache Pulsar vs Confluent

Compared 2% of the time

More Confluent Competitors

Product Reports

Download Aiven Platform product report

Streaming Analytics

March 2026

Download Confluent product report

April 2026

Overview

Aiven for Apache Kafka is a robust data streaming platform utilized for real-time analytics, event-driven architectures, and message brokering, enhancing data processing across systems. It features scalable operations, excellent data replication, and comprehensive monitoring, significantly improving organizational efficiency and decision-making processes through high-level data management capabilities.

Aiven

Confluent offers scalable, open-source flexibility and seamless data replication, supported by strong cloud integration. Key features like Kafka Connect and real-time processing make it valuable for data streaming projects while ensuring high availability with a Multi-Region Cluster.

Confluent is a robust data streaming platform that enables efficient management and integration of real-time data pipelines. Its message-driven architecture and fault tolerance provide reliability, while a user-friendly dashboard and connectors support diverse data sources. Cloud integration reduces costs, and extensive documentation, plugins, and monitoring capabilities enhance collaboration and revision management. Despite some areas needing improvement, including security in the SaaS version and integration flexibility, Confluent remains a staple in industries requiring vast data processing and task automation.

What are Confluent's key features?

Scalability: Handles large volumes of data, ensuring continuous performance.
Kafka Connect: Enables seamless data integration across multiple systems.
Real-time Processing: Facilitates instant data insights for rapid decision-making.
Multi-Region Cluster: Maintains data availability across different geographical locations.
Cloud Integration: Reduces operational costs and enhances deployment flexibility.
User Dashboard: Simplifies management with an intuitive interface.

What benefits and ROI should users consider in reviews?

Cost-Efficiency: Improved processes reduce operational expenses.
Data Reliability: Ensures consistent and accurate data handling.
Increased Collaboration: Boosts team efficiency with comprehensive documentation and management tools.
Scalability: Supports business growth without compromising performance.
Integration Flexibility: Seamlessly connects with diverse data sources and systems.

Confluent is commonly implemented in finance, insurance, and software industries for applications like fraud detection, ETL tasks, and enterprise communication. It supports real-time data processing, project management, and task automation, often integrating with project management tools like Jira, providing valuable solutions for business processes.

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost