Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Boomi iPaaS vs Confluent comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Boomi iPaaS
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (4th), Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (16th), AI Observability (29th)
Confluent
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Boomi iPaaS and Confluent aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Boomi iPaaS is designed for Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) and holds a mindshare of 8.3%, down 8.9% compared to last year.
Confluent, on the other hand, focuses on Streaming Analytics, holds 6.8% mindshare, down 8.5% since last year.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Boomi iPaaS8.3%
MuleSoft Anypoint Platform6.8%
Microsoft Azure Logic Apps6.5%
Other78.4%
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
Streaming Analytics Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Confluent6.8%
Apache Flink11.3%
Databricks9.5%
Other72.4%
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

PN
Integration and Solution Architect/AI Engineer (Boomi and Workday) at Tech Bridger
Enables swift integration and automation for seamless order-to-cash processes
Boomi iPaaS offers different modules based on customer use cases, which I find valuable. The integrations and API management are particularly beneficial. The setup process is straightforward, and within three days, you can start working on Boomi iPaaS. It provides automation for everything from order to cash, which is thoroughly documented, tracked, and streamlined within Boomi iPaaS. Additionally, Boomi aids initiatives involving AI by allowing prompts to create integrations and automatically generating documentation.
PavanManepalli - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Extremely flexible for any kind of integration between systems."
"I really appreciate the on-the-go access through the browser and the B2B integration."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"I like the tool's optimization feature."
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is stable."
"Boomi iPaaS makes it easy to organize ETL procedures that populate data warehouses."
"The best features are that it is a cloud-based and a multi-tenant tool."
"The product's integration features are quite rich and low code. It is easy to use."
"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
 

Cons

"The most valuable features of Boomi are the integration capabilities, the Data Hub product, and the UDI integration."
"It is a costly platform. Its pricing could be better."
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is not yet exposed to the world as a good product owing to certain shortcomings in the area of marketing where improvements are required."
"There are more mature (dedicated) API management and master data management (MDM) solutions available in the market."
"We would like to see more involvement between Dell Boomi and the end-users to help improve the customer experience."
"There should be more scripting possibilities."
"The product could be a little bit more user-friendly."
"There are very few string handling functions and few mathematical functions are available."
"It could have more themes. They should also have more reporting-oriented plugins as well. It would be great to have free custom reports that can be dispatched directly from Jira."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"Confluent has fallen behind in being the tool of the industry. It's taking second place to things such as Word and SharePoint and other office tools that are more dynamic and flexible than Confluent."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"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."
"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is very economical (based on the connections)."
"When it comes to pricing, it's not so much about being less expensive as it is about how they don't tie to the hardware on the underlined VMware that you run on, as other vendors do"
"They do not charge by the number of people using the software (client-server model), but rather they charge based on the number of connections used. This makes it very cost effective."
"The licensing model of Dell Boomi is based on a ‘pay-per-use’ model."
"The pricing is a bit complex. While the entry fee may be lower than other solutions, it could be expensive depending on your usage."
"There could be an easy-to-understand licensing model."
"The Platinum package is good for licensing, but I’m not sure about the cost and improvements."
"It is an expensive platform."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is low pricing and ten is high pricing, I would rate Confluent's pricing at five. I have not encountered any additional costs."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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 has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
882,260 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Retailer
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Boomi AtomSphere Integration?
The tool's most valuable features I've found are related to debugging and testing. It makes it easy to track execution, documents, and process history. This functionality is particularly useful for...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Boomi AtomSphere Integration?
The pricing for Boomi iPaaS is reasonable, costing around $6,000 per year. It is affordable even for small customers, like a salon with a couple of branches.
What needs improvement with Boomi AtomSphere Integration?
Boomi iPaaS needs better source control. It is not as good as it could be in terms of managing versions and running what-if scenarios.
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?
They charge a lot for scaling, which makes it expensive.
What needs improvement with Confluent?
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 ...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Boomi
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DocuSign Inc., Innotas, Certent, Renesas Electronics America (REA), Kelly-Moore Paints, Mindjet, City of McKinney, Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (RBA), Daylight Transport, A10 Networks
ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Salesforce, Informatica and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). Updated: February 2026.
882,260 professionals have used our research since 2012.