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

Apache Kafka vs SAS Event Stream Processing 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

Apache Kafka
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
90
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SAS Event Stream Processing
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
27th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Apache Kafka is 4.0%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Event Stream Processing is 1.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Apache Kafka4.0%
SAS Event Stream Processing1.1%
Other94.9%
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

Bruno da Silva - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager at Timestamp, SA
Have worked closely with the team to deploy streaming and transaction pipelines in a flexible cloud environment
The interface of Apache Kafka could be significantly better. I started working with Apache Kafka from its early days, and I have seen many improvements. The back office functionality could be enhanced. Scaling up continues to be a challenge, though it is much easier now than it was in the beginning.
Roi Jason Buela - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Technical Consultant at Thakral One
A solution with useful windowing features and great for operations and marketing
The persistence could be better. Although ESP is designed for in-memory processing, it would be better if the solution is enhanced or improved on the persistence of the data that is kept in the memory. For example, if one server goes down and the information is stored in the memory, it is lost. Therefore, the persistence needs to be improved so that if there are more cases where the server is down, the information and data can still be intact.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It eases our current data flow and framework."
"It is easy to configure."
"Apache Kafka is scalable. It is easy to add brokers."
"The processing power of Apache Kafka is good when you have requirements for high throughput and a large number of consumers."
"Apache Kafka is a mature product and can handle a massive amount of data in real time for data consumption."
"Kafka is an open-source tool that's easy to use in our country, and the command line interface is powerful."
"With Kafka, events and streaming are persistent, and multiple subscribers can consume the data. This is an advantage of Kafka compared to simple queue-based solutions."
"We get amazing throughput. We don't get any delay."
"The solution is beneficial on an enterprise level."
"The solution is beneficial on an enterprise level."
 

Cons

"We used to have problems in Kafka every three weeks and our dev ops team fixed a few issues."
"The standard Kafka Java library, which is shipped with the product, is too complex for inexperienced users."
"I would like to see monitoring service tools."
"An area for improvement would be growth."
"Apache Kafka can improve by providing a UI for monitoring. There are third-party tools that can do it, but it would be nice if it was already embedded within Apache Kafka."
"It's not possible to substitute IBM MQ with Apache Kafka because the JMS part is not very stable."
"Config management can be better. We are always trying to find the best configs, which is a challenge."
"The solution should be easier to manage. It needs to improve its visualization feature in the next release."
"The persistence could be better."
"The persistence could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Apache Kafka is open-source and can be used free of charge."
"I was using the product's free version."
"Apache Kafka is an open-sourced solution. There are fees if you want the support, and I would recommend it for enterprises. There are annual subscriptions available."
"Running a Kafka cluster can be expensive, especially if you need to scale it up to handle large amounts of data."
"Kafka is open-source and it is cheaper than any other product."
"The solution is free, it is open-source."
"The price of the solution is low."
"It's a bit cheaper compared to other Q applications."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise50
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What are the differences between Apache Kafka and IBM MQ?
Apache Kafka is open source and can be used for free. It has very good log management and has a way to store the data used for analytics. Apache Kafka is very good if you have a high number of user...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache Kafka?
Its pricing is reasonable. It's not always about cost, but about meeting specific needs.
What needs improvement with Apache Kafka?
The long-term data storage feature in Apache Kafka depends on the setting, but I believe the maximum duration is seven days.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Uber, Netflix, Activision, Spotify, Slack, Pinterest
Honda, HSBC, Lufthansa, Nestle, 89Degrees.
Find out what your peers are saying about Databricks, Microsoft, Apache and others in Streaming Analytics. Updated: May 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.