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

Confluent vs IBM InfoSphere Information Server 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)
IBM InfoSphere Information ...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (31st), Metadata Management (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Confluent and IBM InfoSphere Information Server 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.
IBM InfoSphere Information Server, on the other hand, focuses on Data Integration, holds 0.9% mindshare, up 0.7% since last year.
Streaming Analytics
Data Integration
 

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.
UmeshKumar1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Prompt support, reliable, but lacking scalability
IBM InfoSphere Information Server has multiple tools in that product suite. However, we mainly use it as an integration tool I have been using IBM InfoSphere Information Server for approximately five years. IBM InfoSphere Information Server is stable. IBM InfoSphere Information Server should be…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"It is also good for knowledge base management."
"The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."
"IBM InfoSphere Information Server is stable."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"This solution is extremely flexible and scalable."
"The integration with different technologies is the most valuable feature."
 

Cons

"We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"Currently, in the early stages, I see a gap on the security side. If you are using the SaaS version, we would like to get a fuller, more secure solution that can be adopted right out of the box. Confluence could do a better job sharing best practices or a reusable pattern that others have used, especially for companies that can not afford to hire professional services from Confluent."
"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."
"It could be improved by including a feature that automatically creates a new topic and puts failed messages."
"They should remove Zookeeper because of security issues."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"Their technical support needs improvement."
"This solution would benefit from the engine being made more lightweight."
"There are certain shortcomings in the cloud side of the solution, where improvements are required."
"IBM InfoSphere Information Server should be more scalable. It should have the option to change the configuration to run on a single, non-multiple node, or multi-threading processing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"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."
"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."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"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 an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"The licensing cost of IBM InfoSphere Information Server depends on how many users there are."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
847,862 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%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Government
14%
Insurance Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
What do you like most about IBM InfoSphere Information Server?
Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
What needs improvement with IBM InfoSphere Information Server?
There are certain shortcomings in the cloud side of the solution, where improvements are required. In our company, we are presently in the process of doing a PoC phase since we have the solution cu...
What is your primary use case for IBM InfoSphere Information Server?
I use IBM InfoSphere Information Server in retail banking for transformation purposes.
 

Also Known As

No data available
InfoSphere Information Server, IBM Information Server
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Canadian National Railway Company, Chickasaw Nation Division of Commerce, Swedish Armed Forces, BG RCI, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., University of Arizona, Biogrid Australia
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. IBM InfoSphere Information Server and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
847,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.