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

Confluent vs webMethods.io 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 (3rd)
webMethods.io
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (11th), API Management (11th), Cloud Data Integration (10th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (7th)
 

Featured Reviews

PavanManepalli - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Derrick Brockel - PeerSpot reviewer
An integration platform that enables you to automate tasks by connecting apps and services
Follow best practices,engage in their professional services to help build your messaging system and to be PR have some PR emphasis and and blue Bluegreen deployment You could take half your your clusters out, upgrade them, and put them back in so you have a quick callback. And also patch quarterly, we got we got downbound. And and at that point, it's a little hard to get into the cycle when you're releasing software every every week, and you're trying to, go through an upgrade seven fifty servers, it's a little hard to get into the upgrade flow when when you're running that tight. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

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."
"The monitoring module is impressive."
"I would rate the scalability of the solution at eight out of ten. We have 20 people who use Confluent in our organization now, and we hope to increase usage in the future."
"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 solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."
"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"We ensure seamless management of Kafka through Confluent, allowing all of our Kafka activities to be handled by a third party."
"We mostly use the solution's message queues and event-driven architecture."
"The solution's ease-of-use is its most valuable feature, in which complex issues may be resolved."
"The solution is scalable."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"Application integration, business process integration, and B2B partner integration are valuable. But among these, I feel B2B partner integration is the most valuable. This module integrates two business partners and exchanges data through electronic data interchange messages in the form of specific standards, without any manual process needed."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server."
"webMethods Trading Networks is a good solution for interacting with outside of the organization. We can integrate the solutions with multiple outside the organization."
"One of the most important features is that it gives you the possibility to do low-level integration. It provides a lot of features out of the box, and over the years, it has matured so much that any problem that is there in the market can be solved with this product. We can meet any requirements through customizations, transformations, or the logic that needs to be put in. Some of the other products struggle in this aspect. They cannot do things in a certain way, or they have a product limitation, whereas, with webMethods, I have never faced this kind of problem."
 

Cons

"Confluent has fallen behind in being the tool of the industry. It's taking second place to things such as Word and SharePoint and other office tools that are more dynamic and flexible than Confluent."
"I am not very impressed by Confluent. We continuously face issues, such as Kafka being down and slow responses from the support team."
"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."
"It would help if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."
"Confluence could improve the server version of the solution. However, most companies are going to the cloud."
"there is room for improvement in the visualization."
"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"The improvement needed is related to the model's position. As of now, it seems to be more of a conceptual idea rather than a widely implemented solution. For how long"
"In terms of scale, I would give it a four out of 10."
"It is quite expensive."
"The solution has big instances when deployed under microservices or in a containerized platform. They need to improve that so that it is competitive with other integration solutions, like Redis and Kafka. Deployments under microservices with those solutions are much more lightweight, in the size of the runtime itself, compared with Software AG."
"Rules engine processes and BPM processes should be improved."
"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."
"The solution should include REST API calls."
"The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"You have to pay additional for one or two features."
"Confluent is highly priced."
"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."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"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."
"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."
"Pricing is the number-one downfall. It's too expensive. They could make more money by dropping the price in half and getting more customers. It's the best product there is, but it's too expensive."
"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."
"It is worth the cost."
"I do see a lack of capabilities inside of the monetization area for them. They have a cloud infrastructure that is pay per use type of a thing. If you already use 1,000 transactions per se, then you can be charged and billed. I see room for improvement there for their side on that particular capability of the monetization."
"webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."
"It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one."
"It is a cost-effective solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Data Integration solutions are best for your needs.
872,655 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise16
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise63
 

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 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 do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,655 professionals have used our research since 2012.