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 iPaaS functionality is very mature. The browser based IDE is also very mature and stable."
"Boomi iPaaS makes it easy to organize ETL procedures that populate data warehouses."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring part to debug certain issues and find problems."
"It's very user-friendly and designed to be easy to use for the end user."
"This is a fairly easy-to-use tool for integration which can be self-taught for those with a bit of a technical background."
"The platform is user-friendly."
"I really appreciate the on-the-go access through the browser and the B2B integration."
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration is stable."
"The features I find most useful in Confluent are the Multi-Region Cluster, MRC, and the Cluster Linking for replication."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"I would rate the scalability of the solution at eight out of ten. We have 20 people who use Confluent in our organization now, and we hope to increase usage in the future."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"The biggest benefit of Confluent as a tool is that it is a distributed platform that provides more durability and stability."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
 

Cons

"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."
"We encountered stability issues occasionally, one to two times a year."
"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."
"They are lacking in some streaming features, and messaging features from a listener's point of view."
"There should be more scripting possibilities."
"The high price of the solution is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Boomi AtomSphere Integration should scale up on the migration area."
"It could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"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."
"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."
"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of the solution is in the neighborhood of $20,000 annually. There are no costs above the standard licensing fee."
"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."
"The licensing model of Dell Boomi is based on a ‘pay-per-use’ model."
"The pricing is not reasonable at all. It's very high."
"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive."
"It is an expensive platform."
"Approximately 20k annually."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"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."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
882,333 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.
882,333 professionals have used our research since 2012.