No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Confluent vs JumpMind SymmetricDS 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
6.3
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Streaming Analytics (6th)
JumpMind SymmetricDS
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Data Replication (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Confluent and JumpMind SymmetricDS aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Confluent is designed for Streaming Analytics and holds a mindshare of 6.6%, down 8.2% compared to last year.
JumpMind SymmetricDS, on the other hand, focuses on Data Replication, holds 4.3% mindshare, up 1.9% since last year.
Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Confluent6.6%
Apache Flink8.9%
Databricks8.1%
Other76.4%
Streaming Analytics
Data Replication Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
JumpMind SymmetricDS4.3%
NetApp SnapMirror7.2%
Dell RecoverPoint5.9%
Other82.6%
Data Replication
 

Featured Reviews

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.
reviewer1625691 - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at a non-profit with 1-10 employees
Fully-featured, good performance, and easy to use and install
We are using it to back up the software across the network to a remote server It is fully featured. It has allowed me to do everything I wanted to do. It is also very easy to use and install. It is pretty self-explanatory, and their support was also very good. Everything is fine. The user…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Some of the best features are that it's very quick to set up, very easy to have a centralized area that gives us a history of changes, and the ability to give feedback on any information placed onto the pages."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"Having used SharePoint in the past, when I compare with traditional, old document repositories, like SharePoint, I would definitely recommend Confluent."
"The features I find most useful in Confluent are the Multi-Region Cluster, MRC, and the Cluster Linking for replication."
"The most valuable is its capability to enhance the documentation process, particularly when creating software documentation."
"Implementing Confluent's schema registry has significantly enhanced our organization's data quality assurance."
"The design of the product is extremely well built and it is highly configurable."
"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."
"It is fully featured, has allowed me to do everything I wanted to do, is very easy to use and install, is pretty self-explanatory, and their support was also very good."
"Customer Service: We have a support contract with Jumpmind. The support resources are readily available and provide expert support to any questions."
"It is fully featured. It has allowed me to do everything I wanted to do."
 

Cons

"In Confluent, there could be a few more VPN options."
"From the control center perspective, there is a lot of room for improvement in the visualization."
"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."
"The beginner who doesn't know how to work on HTML will struggle as when you create spaces in the Confluent, if you want to have some meeting notes or anything else, you need to know HTML and which HTML tags to include."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"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."
"We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"The user interface could improve. We are looking at some cloud-based databases, and I don't think they support that."
"The user interface could improve. We are looking at some cloud-based databases, and I don't think they support that."
 

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."
"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."
"It comes with a high cost."
"Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
894,830 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Retailer
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise17
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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 ...
What is your primary use case for Confluent?
The main use cases for Confluent are log aggregation and streaming. I'm familiar with Confluent stream processing with KSQL. KSQL helps in terms of data analytics strategies because if we are the d...
Does JumpMind SymmetricDS support a large array of databases?
Yes, it does. This data replication software works with many popular databases, allowing users to benefit from its services. What's more, it also works with many data warehouses, as well as streami...
Is JumpMind SymmetricDS easy to use for beginners?
I didn't start with JumpMind SymmetricDS, I actually started using it at a job when I was a little more introduced to data replication. That made me able to see the good features this software has....
Does JumpMind SymmetricDS provide frequent file synchronization?
How often do you need for your data to be synchronized? I'm asking this because different companies use data replication for different purposes. Some use it as simply updating backup, others to giv...
 

Also Known As

No data available
SymmetricDS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
SmartMD, Cancer Research UK
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. JumpMind SymmetricDS and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,830 professionals have used our research since 2012.