Tech manager at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
2024-08-16T14:41:07Z
Aug 16, 2024
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.
I would rate the pricing of Confluent as average, around a five out of ten. Additional costs could include features like multi-tenancy support and native encryption with custom algorithms, which would be beneficial but not currently included in the fixed price.
Confluent has a higher price than MSK. However, it delivers better features for tech stack requirements. For instance, its superior integration capabilities have proven essential, particularly in bridging technologies like microservices written in .NET.
Confluent has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis. The solution's cost should be reduced for a small or mid-segment company.
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. The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only. The price of the solution is based on the capability and input and output of topics received.
Technical Lead at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2021-12-24T13:11:00Z
Dec 24, 2021
From a costing perspective, there are costing implications. If you go the cloud route, as you scale there will be cost implications on a per hour basis. Confluent Cloud is more expensive, be mindful of that.
Senior Distributed Platform Engineer at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
2021-11-09T06:56:58Z
Nov 9, 2021
The license Confluent is server-based. It depends on the number of services that you are running in the cluster. Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance. Large organizations, prefer to use open-sourced solutions because they provide a cost reduction. Apache Kafka is open source and there are many other open-source security tools, which can be used that provide features that Confluent offers.
Delivery Head IT & IS at a non-tech company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2021-04-13T09:33:09Z
Apr 13, 2021
I think Confluent's pricing is very competitive compared to other products on the market. This is especially considering its configurability and extensibility.
Confluent is an enterprise-ready, full-scale streaming platform that enhances Apache Kafka.
Confluent has integrated cutting-edge features that are designed to enhance these tasks:
Speed up application development and connectivity
Enable transformations through stream processing
Streamline business operations at scale
Adhere to strict architectural standards
Confluent is a more complete distribution of Kafka in that it enhances the integration possibilities of Kafka by...
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.
Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three year contract and it was very costly for us.
I would rate the pricing of Confluent as average, around a five out of ten. Additional costs could include features like multi-tenancy support and native encryption with custom algorithms, which would be beneficial but not currently included in the fixed price.
Confluent has a higher price than MSK. However, it delivers better features for tech stack requirements. For instance, its superior integration capabilities have proven essential, particularly in bridging technologies like microservices written in .NET.
The product is expensive. I rate the product’s pricing a six out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.
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's cost should be reduced for a small or mid-segment company.
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.
We need visibility on the licensing 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. The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only. The price of the solution is based on the capability and input and output of topics received.
From a costing perspective, there are costing implications. If you go the cloud route, as you scale there will be cost implications on a per hour basis. Confluent Cloud is more expensive, be mindful of that.
The license Confluent is server-based. It depends on the number of services that you are running in the cluster. Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance. Large organizations, prefer to use open-sourced solutions because they provide a cost reduction. Apache Kafka is open source and there are many other open-source security tools, which can be used that provide features that Confluent offers.
I don't directly handle the licensing. My license is given to me. Therefore, I don't know the terms of the licensing or the exact costs.
I think Confluent's pricing is very competitive compared to other products on the market. This is especially considering its configurability and extensibility.