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

"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring part to debug certain issues and find problems."
"This solution has a user-friendly interface and very good documentation with solutions that helped us in working with the tool efficiently."
"The integration landscape has become complex, and having a data strategy with unified data models would make integration easier for any platform, including Boomi."
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is stable."
"The best features are that it is a cloud-based and a multi-tenant tool."
"It is a low-code and high-configuration platform, which is very valuable. Develop once and run anywhere is another useful feature. It also has connectors for more than 200 applications. It provides value for money. Our customers who have implemented this solution have a very high ROI."
"The solution has a lot of connectors, which is quite helpful."
"AtomSphere Integration will suit those looking for small automation and simple integrations."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."
"The benefit is escaping email communication. Sometimes people ignore emails or put them into spam, but with Confluence, everyone sees the same text at the same time."
"The biggest benefit of Confluent as a tool is that it is a distributed platform that provides more durability and stability."
"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
 

Cons

"It is a costly platform. Its pricing could be better."
"The most valuable features of Boomi are the integration capabilities, the Data Hub product, and the UDI integration."
"There is no validation in the mapping profile custom scripting, such as IntelliSense or advanced error checking."
"Have to create some of our own pre-built connectors."
"There are stability issues."
"Documentation could be improved."
"The API can use some work to come up to speed with the competition but Dell has plans and is working on resolving that."
"The solution is complex. There's a few items and features that are hard to understand. They should work to simplify the functionality so new users don't struggle."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"There is a limitation when it comes to seamlessly importing Microsoft documents into Confluent pages, which can be inconvenient for users who frequently work with Microsoft Office tools and need to transition their content to Confluent."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is a relatively cheap and cost-effective product compared to other products like SAP or Oracle."
"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"The cost of the solution is in the neighborhood of $20,000 annually. There are no costs above the standard licensing fee."
"The pricing is a bit complex. While the entry fee may be lower than other solutions, it could be expensive depending on your usage."
"It is an expensive platform."
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is expensive. I rate its pricing an eight out of ten."
"The licensing model of Dell Boomi is based on a ‘pay-per-use’ model."
"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."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"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."
"It comes with a high cost."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
882,606 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
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
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.
882,606 professionals have used our research since 2012.