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

CloverETL 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

CloverETL
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (65th), Data Visualization (47th)
Confluent
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

CloverETL and Confluent aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. CloverETL is designed for Data Integration and holds a mindshare of 0.2%, up 0.1% compared to last year.
Confluent, on the other hand, focuses on Streaming Analytics, holds 8.5% mindshare, down 11.4% since last year.
Data Integration
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

it_user854766 - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides wealth of pre-defined, customizable components, and descriptive logging for errors
* Familiar, intuitive GUI (Eclipse plug-in) coming from a Java development background. * In-depth, descriptive, and well-laid-out documentation. * Responsive support through forums, even directly from Clover staff. * Wealth of pre-defined components. * All components are customizable. * Descriptive logging, especially for error messages. * Ease of install/light footprint.
Gustavo-Barbosa Dos Santos - PeerSpot reviewer
Has good technical support services and a valuable feature for real-time data streaming
Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance. It helps us understand the various requirements of multiple customers and validates the information for different versions. We can automate the tasks using Confluent Kafka. Thus, it guarantees us the data quality and maintains the integrity of message contracts.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Key features include wealth of pre-defined components; all components are customizable; descriptive logging, especially for error messages."
"No dependence on native language and ease of use.​​"
"Server features for scheduler: It is very easy to schedule jobs and monitor them. The interface is easy to use."
"Connectivity to various data sources: The ability to extract data from different data sources gives greater flexibility."
"The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"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 most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"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."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
 

Cons

"​Resource management: We typically run out of heap space, and even the allocation of high heap space does not seem to be enough.​"
"Needs: easier automated failure recovery; more, and more intuitive auto-generated/filled-in code for components; easier/more automated sync between CloverETL Designer and CloverETL Server."
"Its documentation could be improved.​"
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"There is no local support team in Saudi Arabia."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"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."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"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."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It comes with a high cost."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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 has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"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."
"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."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team. The lack of easy access to the Confluent support team is also a...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, Oracle, MuleSoft, GoodData, Thomson Reuters, salesforce.com, Comcast, Active Network, SHOP.CA
ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Find out what your peers are saying about CloverETL vs. Confluent and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.