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

Cloudera DataFlow vs Confluent comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

Cloudera DataFlow
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
14th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Confluent
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Cloudera DataFlow is 1.1%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Confluent is 8.5%, down from 11.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

Júlio César Gomes Fonseca - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable solution that helps develop quality modules but needs to improve its programming language
The initial setup was not so difficult. The deployment took so long, at least one or two years, because the team has a project that aims to be exceptional in the future. It's good to say because the company is very good. It's a self-confirmation technical integration company. We have numerous reasons why reducing staff workload is beneficial. However, it is important to note that this does not directly apply to the application used. They will only do the service.
Yantao Zhao - PeerSpot reviewer
Great tool for sharing knowledge, internal communication and allows for real-time collaboration on pages
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 created in multiple places by different people. This leads to redundancy and makes it difficult to find information. It's not centralized. So it could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful. It's very easy to use, so everyone can create knowledge. But it would be good to synchronize and organize that information a bit better. Another improvement would be in Confluence search. You can search for keywords, but it's not like AI, not even ChatGPT or OpenAI. It would be nice to get more relevant or organized answers. If you're outside the company, you just get some titles containing the keyword you input. But if Confluence were like a database, you could input something and get a well-organized search offering from multiple pages.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"DataFlow's performance is okay."
"The initial setup was not so difficult"
"The most effective features are data management and analytics."
"This solution is very scalable and robust."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"The most valuable feature that we are using is the data replication between the data centers allowing us to configure a disaster recovery or software. However, is it's not mandatory to use and because most of the features that we use are from Apache Kafka, such as end-to-end encryption. Internally, we can develop our own kind of product or service from Apache Kafka."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."
"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"With Confluent Cloud we no longer need to handle the infrastructure and the plumbing, which is a concern for Confluent. The other advantage is that all portfolios have access to the data that is being shared."
"The client APIs are the most valuable feature."
"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 tools."
 

Cons

"It's an outdated legacy product that doesn't meet the needs of modern data analysts and scientists."
"It is not easy to use the R language. Though I don't know if it's possible, I believe it is possible, but it is not the best language for machine learning."
"Although their workflow is pretty neat, it still requires a lot of transformation coding; especially when it comes to Python and other demanding programming languages."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"It could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"One area we've identified that could be improved is the governance and access control to the Kafka topics. We've found some limitations, like a threshold of 10,000 rules per cluster, that make it challenging to manage access at scale if we have many different data sources."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"DataFlow isn't expensive, but its value for money isn't great."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"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 an expensive solution."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"It comes with a high cost."
"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 Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
16%
University
15%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cloudera DataFlow?
The most effective features are data management and analytics.
What is your primary use case for Cloudera DataFlow?
We use Cloudera DataFlow for stream analytics.
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?
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 maintenanc...
What needs improvement with Confluent?
One area we've identified that could be improved is the governance and access control to the Kafka topics. We've found some limitations, like a threshold of 10,000 rules per cluster, that make it c...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

CDF, Hortonworks DataFlow, HDF
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Clearsense
ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudera DataFlow vs. Confluent and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.