Amazon MSK vs Confluent comparison

Read 25 Confluent reviews

6,452 Views
3,742 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

Amazon MSK

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 18, 2026

Confluent and Amazon MSK are significant competitors in the data streaming field. Confluent tends to have the upper hand with its flexible deployment and advanced features, appealing to enterprises needing robust solutions.

Features: Confluent offers comprehensive stream processing capabilities, enhanced security options, and seamless multi-cloud support. Amazon MSK stands out with its smooth integration with AWS services, strong reliability, and efficient scalability, which benefits AWS-centric frameworks.

Room for Improvement: Confluent could enhance its cost-effectiveness and simplify its setup for smaller-scale deployments. It could also improve cloud-native integrations outside of its proprietary ecosystem. Amazon MSK could enhance support for non-AWS integrations, offer more advanced analytics tools, and provide a more intuitive user interface for broader appeal.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Confluent provides flexible deployment across environments with a user-friendly approach, supporting businesses needing straightforward setups and robust assistance. Amazon MSK delivers seamless AWS ecosystem integration, facilitating easy deployments, with support primarily benefiting existing AWS users.

Pricing and ROI: Confluent's pricing might be higher due to enterprise-grade features, providing strong ROI when fully leveraged. Amazon MSK is cost-effective for AWS-native users, offering good ROI through its integration and scalability within the AWS platform.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon MSK vs. Confluent Report (Updated: September 2026).

Amazon MSK vs. Confluent

Download the complete report

Helped 913,806 peers since 2012

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

Amazon MSK

Ranking in Streaming Analytics

14th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Confluent

Ranking in Streaming Analytics

7th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Amazon MSK is 3.9%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Confluent is 6.3%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Confluent	6.3%
Amazon MSK	3.9%
Other	89.8%

Streaming Analytics

Featured Reviews

SYED SHAAZ

Co-Founder & CTO at Photios AI

Improved data streaming and integration challenges prompt search for alternatives

The integration capabilities of Amazon MSK are not very flexible. If you have your own self-managed Kafka, that helps significantly because you can set up configurations. We are considering self-managed Kafka since our product is only one year old. The Kafka integrations are fine, but the configurations are an issue. The only issue with Amazon MSK that we are facing is the configurations. There are preset configurations and limited configurations that we can set for our unique use case. The product could improve by allowing us to set different configurations. I would also like to see Amazon MSK improve in the area of connectors. We are considering Confluent Cloud because they have many more connectors. They have KSQL DB and governance features. It is slightly costlier, but Confluent offers more flexibility with their connectors.

Read full review

PavanManepalli

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Amazon MSK's separation of concerns and ease of creating and deploying new features are highly valuable. It just requires to assign them to the topic, and then anyone who needs to consume these messages can do so directly from Amazon MSK. This separation of concerns makes it very convenient, especially for new feature development, as developers can easily access the messages they need without having to deal with complex server communications or protocol setups."

"It offers good stability."

"It is a stable product."

"MSK has already launched ZooKeeper and the cluster, and this is included as an out-of-the-box feature, which is very convenient."

"It provides installations, scaling, and other functionalities straight out of the box."

"I have Amazon MSK integrated with other AWS services such as S3 and Lambda."

"Amazon MSK's scalability is very good."

"The solution's technical support was helpful."

More Amazon MSK pros

"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."

"Confluent facilitates the messaging tasks with Kafka, streamlining our processes effectively."

"Confluent is an amazing tool that is highly configurable, integrates very well with Jira, and lets you create nice documentation for various products while also supporting reporting and online content hosting."

"The solution can handle a high volume of data because it works and scales well."

"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."

"One of the best features of Confluent is that it's very easy to search and have a live status with Jira."

"With Confluent Cloud we no longer need to handle the infrastructure and the plumbing, which is a concern for Confluent, and the other advantage is that all portfolios have access to the data that is being shared."

More Confluent pros

Cons

"The product's schema support needs enhancement. It will help enhance integration with many kinds of languages of programming languages, especially for environments using languages like .NET."

"One of the reasons why we prefer Kafka is because the support is a little bit difficult to manage with Amazon MSK."

"It does not autoscale. Because if you do keep it manually when you add a note to the cluster and then you register it, then it is scalable, but the fact that you have to go and do it, I think, makes it, again, a bit of some operational overhead when managing the cluster."

"The configuration seems a little complex and the documentation on the product is not available."

"The downside of Amazon MSK is that when I needed to make a small change in the MSK configuration, it wasn't possible. I had to remove and drop all the clusters and recreate them again, which is complicated in a production environment."

"In my opinion, there are areas in Amazon MSK that could be improved, particularly in terms of configuration. Initially setting it up and getting it connected was quite challenging. The naming conventions for policies were updated by AWS, and some were undocumented, leading to confusion with outdated materials. It took us weeks of trial and error before discovering new methods through hidden tutorials and official documentation."

"Horizontal scale-out is actually not easy, making it an area where improvements are required."

"The only issue with Amazon MSK that we are facing is the configurations. There are preset configurations and limited configurations that we can set for our unique use case."

More Amazon MSK cons

"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."

"The solution could have an extra plugin or upgrading feature. In addition, it could have more integration with different platforms and be more compatible."

"The formatting aspect within the page can be improved and more powerful."

"The Schema Registry service could be improved. I would like a bigger knowledge base of other use cases and more technical forums. It would be good to have more flexible monitoring features added to the next release as well."

"It would be great if the knowledge based documents in the support portal could be available for public use as well."

"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."

"The pricing model should include the ability to pick features and be charged for them only."

"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."

More Confluent cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The platform has better pricing than one of its competitors."

"The price of Amazon MSK is less than some competitor solutions, such as Confluence."

"When you create a complete enterprise-driven architecture that is deployable on an enterprise scale, I would say that the prices of Amazon MSK and Confluent Platform become comparable."

"The solution is cheaper than other products."

"Confluent is an expensive solution as we went for a three contract and it was very costly for us."

"Confluent is highly priced."

"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."

"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."

"It comes with a high cost."

"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."

"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."

More Confluent pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Construction Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Retailer

12%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	5

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	17

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Amazon MSK?

What is your primary use case for Amazon MSK?

We are recently working with Amazon MSK at Fortis, where we have multiple dashboards in our revenue intelligence platform. We are streaming data from different apps into those dashboards. The data ...

What advice do you have for others considering Amazon MSK?

We are working with Amazon MSK product, Managed Streaming for Apache Kafka. The main benefits I have seen from using Amazon MSK is that as a B2B enterprise client, we have many SLAs to fulfill. Tra...

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?

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...

Azure Stream Analytics vs Amazon MSK

Comparisons

Compared 13% of the time

Aiven Platform vs Amazon MSK

Compared 9% of the time

Amazon Kinesis vs Amazon MSK

Compared 9% of the time

Cloudera DataFlow vs Amazon MSK

Compared 7% of the time

Oracle Stream Analytics vs Amazon MSK

Compared 6% of the time

More Amazon MSK Competitors

Palantir Foundry vs Confluent

Compared 10% of the time

Azure Stream Analytics vs Confluent

Compared 7% of the time

Databricks vs Confluent

Compared 6% of the time

Amazon Kinesis vs Confluent

Compared 6% of the time

Cloudera DataFlow vs Confluent

Compared 3% of the time

More Confluent Competitors

Product Reports

Amazon MSK

Download Amazon MSK product report

Download Confluent product report

Also Known As

Amazon Managed Streaming for Apache Kafka

No data available

Overview

Amazon MSK offers seamless AWS integration, simplifying development and operation. It supports efficient data streaming and ensures cost-effective scalability without additional setup needs.

Amazon MSK stands out for its effortless creation, deployment, and access to new features without complex VPC configurations. Automating scalability, it demands minimal intervention, making it ideal for high-volume workflows. Developers benefit from real-time analytics, event sourcing, and log ingestion, aiding in dashboard maintenance and user log tracking. However, integration challenges exist as some face inflexibility, intricate configurations, and plugin development difficulties. Schema validation, connector variety, and complex update processes lead some to seek alternatives. Noteworthy for order data streaming, transaction tracking in retail and banking, and other real-time data applications, Amazon MSK remains attractive despite high cost concerns.

What are Amazon MSK's key features?

Seamless AWS Integration: No additional setup or VPC needed.
Automatic Scalability: Minimal intervention thanks to automatic configurations.
Real-time Analytics: Supports event sourcing and log ingestion.
Cost-effective: Tailored for high-volume workflows.
Encryption: Secure data during migrations.

What benefits should users consider when evaluating Amazon MSK?

Efficiency: Effortless deployment and development support.
Scalability: Automated processes reduce operational overhead.
Cost Management: Financially viable for larger data volumes.
Security: High level of encryption during data transfers.
Data Handling: Effective for streaming, integration, and real-time processing.

In retail and banking, Amazon MSK facilitates order data streaming and transaction tracking. Its capabilities in supporting CDC pipelines, high-volume data management, and asynchronous processes make it favorable for integrating systems, streaming IoT data, and managing dashboard flows. Challenges in integration and configuration persist, nudging users to explore different options in certain contexts.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Confluent offers scalable, open-source flexibility and seamless data replication, supported by strong cloud integration. Key features like Kafka Connect and real-time processing make it valuable for data streaming projects while ensuring high availability with a Multi-Region Cluster.

Confluent is a robust data streaming platform that enables efficient management and integration of real-time data pipelines. Its message-driven architecture and fault tolerance provide reliability, while a user-friendly dashboard and connectors support diverse data sources. Cloud integration reduces costs, and extensive documentation, plugins, and monitoring capabilities enhance collaboration and revision management. Despite some areas needing improvement, including security in the SaaS version and integration flexibility, Confluent remains a staple in industries requiring vast data processing and task automation.

What are Confluent's key features?

Scalability: Handles large volumes of data, ensuring continuous performance.
Kafka Connect: Enables seamless data integration across multiple systems.
Real-time Processing: Facilitates instant data insights for rapid decision-making.
Multi-Region Cluster: Maintains data availability across different geographical locations.
Cloud Integration: Reduces operational costs and enhances deployment flexibility.
User Dashboard: Simplifies management with an intuitive interface.

What benefits and ROI should users consider in reviews?

Cost-Efficiency: Improved processes reduce operational expenses.
Data Reliability: Ensures consistent and accurate data handling.
Increased Collaboration: Boosts team efficiency with comprehensive documentation and management tools.
Scalability: Supports business growth without compromising performance.
Integration Flexibility: Seamlessly connects with diverse data sources and systems.

Confluent is commonly implemented in finance, insurance, and software industries for applications like fraud detection, ETL tasks, and enterprise communication. It supports real-time data processing, project management, and task automation, often integrating with project management tools like Jira, providing valuable solutions for business processes.

Sample Customers

Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost

Amazon MSK vs. Confluent