Apache Kafka Reviews

We use Apache Kafka for financial purposes. Every time one of our subscribed customers is due for an insurance payment, Apache Kafka sends an automated notification to the customer to let them know that their bill is due.

Resiliency is great and also the fact that it handles different data formats. There is one data format that's universal across multiple application domains — Avro. It's pretty universal compared to JSON, XML, SQI, and other formats.

Some vendors don't offer extra features for monitoring. Some come with Linux for default monitoring. Monitoring is very important. If something is not working properly, then our subscribers won't receive a notification. You then have to trace it back to Kafka and find the glitch or the messaging sequence that hasn't been racked up correctly.

It should support Avro — which handles different data formats — as a default data format. It would be much more flexible if it did.

I have been using Apache Kafka for three years.

It seems to be quite stable.

Apache Kafka is Scalable. You can actually launch a server node or a broker. Three nodes and Zookeeper (the Kafka server management system) is optimal. If one of them goes down you can automatically launch another one. You can go three servers or brokers back — there's a repetition on each Kafka broker.

Apache Kafka is open-source. They don't offer technical support.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Apache Kafka a rating of eight.

We are a service implementer and we supply this solution to our customers. I'm a company co-founder and we are customers of Apache. 

The solution has improved our functionality, it's one of the best streaming platforms I've used. 

I'd like to see improvement in terms of observability.

I've been using this product for the last five years on and off. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward, it's not complicated.

This is an open-source product.

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We had an application stack consisting of Salesforce frontend and a Commander VPN position management system and used Apache Kafka to decouple the microservices. Additionally, we planned to use Kafka for stream processing and to use event sourcing to pull data from legacy systems and reference data to form a compacted topic that the microservices could consume.

The usage of Kafka is a combination of deploying on a personal Kubernetes cluster or using a managed service such as MSK. However, most people who use Kafka are using a managed service provided by Confluent. It can be deployed on the cloud or on-premise.

The most valuable feature of Apache Kafka is its versatility. It can solve many use cases or can be a part of many use cases. Its fundamental value of it is in the real-time processing capability.

You need time-sensitive technology now, particularly in the analytics space. We have looked at using change data capture and Apache Kafka to modernize our analytics capabilities. Additionally, microservices can be used to capture events from legacy systems.

Managing Apache Kafka can be a challenge, but there are solutions. I used the newest release, as it seems they have removed Zookeeper, which should make it easier. Confluent provides a fully managed Kafka platform, in which the cluster does not need to be managed.

If it is a native Apache Kafka, it would have schema registry capabilities. However, this type of functionality is often provided by third-party tools. Additionally, there may be a need for improved manageability and additional tools to manage the cluster, including standard operational metrics and inbuilt management capabilities.

I have been using Apache Kafka for approximately three years.

The solution is highly resilient.

I rate the stability of Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

Apache Kafka is scalable.

I rate the scalability of Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

The support from Apache Kafka is good.

The initial setup of Apache Kafka is easy to set up a cluster.  I did the initial setup on my laptop and it is straightforward. I used the Confluent version, but even if you want to run native capabilities it's straightforward to do the implementation.

The recent proof of concept was done on behalf of a client by a system integrator. Similarly, the previous one was mainly done in-house and it utilized Confluent, Apache Kafka, and MSK. The process involved setting up pre-built capabilities.

The price of the solution is low.

I rate the price of Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

I rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

We use an open-source version of this solution, and we have two deployments of it. One is on-prem, and the other is in the cloud. We use the on-prem version to aggregate our logs. We use the cloud version to manage queues for financial services. 

It just works and it's super fast. We were struggling with a Rabbit MQ cluster, so the Apache cluster is way easier.

I would like them to reduce the learning curve around the creation of brokers and topics. They also need to improve on the concept of the partitions. 

As for features, RabbitMQ has an instant response feature where you can send a queue and get an instant response, but Kafka only has one way to send queues. If that's something they could improve on, it would be great.

This is my second year working with this solution. 

I think it's very stable. I would rate the stability as a four or five out of five. 

The solution is very scalable. We started with a cluster of three and then scaled it to seven. I would give the solution a five out of five for scalability. Currently, we have 20+ employees on the technical team that are using the solution. 

We provide outsource services for other institutions. There is a whole set queue management form, and we have about five institutions, with three technical teams that use the same cluster.

There was a little learning curve, but we managed it. I think it took us around six weeks to complete the deployment. 

We have a team of three people who handled the deployment in-house. They also handle the maintenance for the solution. 

We do not use customer support, but there is a lot of documentation available.

I would definitely recommend this solution to other people. I would rate it as an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case for this solution is streaming.

We have been using this solution for four years.

The solution is stable. However, it's not possible to substitute IBM MQ with Apache Kafka because the JMS part is not very stable. It is inadequate and doesn't have the support of the MQI interface of IBM MQ.

The solution is scalable. Deployment is speedy, but we don't have many installations. We have over a thousand users using this solution and will most likely increase the number of users because we have tested 100,000 messages per second. The solution is impressive.

We previously used Mosquitto and Rabbit solutions, but we currently use Apache Kafka.

We are licensed annually for this solution.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten for streaming. I recommend it to other people. The solution is good, but its performance can be improved.

We use Apache Kafka for our messaging. 

We publish a message and ask the subscriber to listen to it. We use it to save events generated by integration with external systems. There are external events, that are first published to our Kafka queue, and then to a topic, and then we save it to our own data storage system.

I believe that the speed, and especially the performance, are very good features.

Also included is a cluster with built-in failover. 

It is the performance that is really meaningful.

In terms of features, we are satisfied. I don't require any additional features. I don't believe we require any additional features at this time.

More Windows support, I believe, is one area where it can improve. We need to wrap it as a service, but there isn't one built into Windows. So that's something they could improve.

I believe Windows Server is primarily aimed at the Windows shop or those who use Windows.

I don't recall the specific version that we are using, it may be Kafka 2.11, but it is not the latest one.

It's stable. However, the Windows Service is not very stable because it is a wrapper.

We are a small team with a few people.

We might increase our usage in the future.

We don't get in touch with technical support. We rely on open-source software. We haven't used the help of technical support. We did not seek assistance. As a result, I have no opinion on the subject.

This is the first product we have used. We didn't have anything prior to that.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's easy to set up.

It took a few days to get it up and running.

We only need one or two engineers to keep this solution running. We basically let it run and monitor what's going on. We usually don't touch it unless something goes wrong.

We deployed it ourselves.

It's free. We use the free version.

VMware RabbitMQ and ActiveMQ are products that are not being used by us. I wanted to look into it. But we use different things.

We compared our findings to those of other researchers. We are primarily concerned with performance. Kafka is unquestionably the performance leader.

I would recommend trying this solution, but you should probably run it on Linux.

I like this product, I would rate Apache Kafka a nine out of ten.

We deployed this solution in a project for one of our customers to synchronize the different applications; to transport information from one application to another. I'm a program manager and we are customers of Apache.

This solution is robust and delivers messages quickly. It's a simple but good product.

The management tool could be improved.

I've been using this solution for the past few months. 

In this project, we used Kafka to synchronize 28 nodes spread out nationally and it seems scalable. We plan to consolidate the 28 nodes for national integration of nodes and schemas.

We didn't need to contact technical support. We just allotted the software, installed it and started working with it. We carried out a lot of testing pre-development. Development was done with a company that previously used Kafka so we were able to exchange technical information. 

We previously used ActiveMQ for another project.

The initial setup was a little complex. We carried out the development ourselves. 

Our clients purchased the license and they think it's an affordable solution. 

I recommend this solution, we're probably going to use it again in another project.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We are in the early stages of testing this solution in our lab as a demo. It is in development and we are not in production at this point.

We are using this solution to relay events when they happen to multiple receivers at once to allow better functionality.

Apache Kafka has helped our client's online restaurant company by allowing them to take any orders and send the notifications with some other details, such as logic commands, to the different microservices.

The valuable features are the group community and support.

The solution can improve by having automation for developers. We have done many manual calculations and it has been difficult but if it was automated it would be much better.

I have been using this solution for approximately three months.

The solution's scalability is important for our ability to have more throughput from multiple receivers. If we need more throughput it can deliver.

We did use other solutions previously but this solution makes things a lot easier.

The installation is fairly easy. Additionally, there is a cloud-based version available if a use case requires it.

We did the implementation ourselves.

The solution is free, it is open-source.

There is a lot of configuration involved in this solution. We have found many configurations that have helped us but it would be beneficial if there was automation. 

I rate Apache Kafka a five out of ten.