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

Confluent vs HiT Software DBMoto 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

Confluent
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (4th)
HiT Software DBMoto
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Replication (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

Confluent and HiT Software DBMoto aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Confluent is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 8.5%, down 11.4% compared to last year.
HiT Software DBMoto, on the other hand, focuses on Data Replication, holds 0.9% mindshare, down 1.0% since last year.
Streaming Analytics
Data Replication
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer1077405 - PeerSpot reviewer
Replication monitor feature is helpful in that it allows a quick view of the status, errors, and results of the last replication
We appreciate the ease of use in this solution. It looks like File Explorer, where you set up your source and targets. Replications are created simply by using the replication wizard. It also has functionality for scheduling, verification, and alerts. The ability to write code for transformations is very useful. Once the replications are set up it is simple to maintain. The Replication monitor is helpful in that it allows a quick view of the status, errors, and results of the last replication. Replication logs and history files are very useful for determining problematic data issues. The transaction latency tool is also helpful for determining how many connections are required for larger files. The replication types that are available are: Refresh Only, Continuous, and Synchronization. We currently use Refresh Only (scheduled refreshes), and Continuous. The source and target table verification is very helpful for running checks. The Replication Monitor is also a great plus, which shows a quick view of the replication status.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Our main goal is to validate whether we can build a scalable and cost-efficient way to replicate data from these various sources."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."
"Kafka Connect framework is valuable for connecting to the various source systems where code doesn't need to be written."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"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 most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"The most valuable features are that is easy to install and it is user-friendly."
"DBMoto was very simple to set up and move our tables to the Oracle DB."
 

Cons

"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"I am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"The product should integrate tools for incorporating diagrams like Lucidchart. It also needs to improve its formatting features. We also faced issues while granting permissions."
"It could be more user-friendly and centralized. A way to reduce redundancy would be helpful."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"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 is an area that needs improvement."
"This product would be improved with additional built-in functions for simpler date conversion, as well as for data type transformations."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"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 is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"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."
"Customers pay a license fee yearly."
"I found the price to be quite reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
DBMoto
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
JAS Forwarding Worldwide, Animal, Financiera Pagos Internacionales C.F., Bur de Credito, Qualitas-IT, EFCO Corporation, Andrews Consulting, ASL Modena, BancAssurance Popolari S.p.A., Banco BICSA, Cheshire County Council, Epson Precision, Ferrari North America
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. HiT Software DBMoto and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.