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

Confluent vs Google Cloud Dataflow comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Google Cloud Dataflow
Ranking in Streaming Analytics
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Streaming Analytics category, the mindshare of Confluent is 6.1%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Cloud Dataflow is 3.6%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Streaming Analytics Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Confluent6.1%
Google Cloud Dataflow3.6%
Other90.3%
Streaming Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

PavanManepalli - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Mohammed Aaqibuddin - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Cdp Specialist at DigitasLBi
Unified user personas have improved data workflows and support detailed monitoring and logging
Google Cloud has many streams and products. In Google Cloud, everything is translated in the backend, so we do not have to use services such as Apache Beam. When you want to use Google Cloud Functions, you write the code, and the backend talks to all the libraries or Apache, so we do not need to be concerned about those. We just need to use our functions that translate and have many tools and services readily available. Google Cloud Dataflow has made it very easy for detailed monitoring and logging features for pipeline performance assessment. For example, if I am using Google Cloud Functions, I can easily see what changes I have done and trace it properly. I can see what is happening with this script, how many users are affected, whether the script is working, what is failing, and how we can rectify issues with proper monitoring.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Their tech support is amazing; they are very good, both on and off-site."
"As an enterprise organization, data availability is critical and Confluent provides that SLA support."
"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."
"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."
"Confluence's greatest asset is its user-friendly interface, coupled with its remarkable ability to seamlessly integrate with a vast range of other solutions."
"The documentation process is fast with the tool."
"A person with a good IT background and HTML will not have any trouble with Confluent."
"The most valuable feature of Confluent is the wide range of features provided. They're leading the market in this category."
"I don't need a server running all the time while using the tool. It is also easy to setup. The product offers a pay-as-you-go service."
"The support team is good and it's easy to use."
"The most valuable features of Google Cloud Dataflow are the integration, it's very simple if you have the complete stack, which we are using. It is overall very easy to use, user-friendly friendly, and cost-effective if you know how to use it. The solution is very flexible for programmers, if you know how to do scripts or program in Python or any other language, it's extremely easy to use."
"Google Cloud Dataflow has made it very easy for detailed monitoring and logging features for pipeline performance assessment."
"The service is relatively cheap compared to other batch-processing engines."
"The most valuable features of Google Cloud Dataflow are scalability and connectivity."
"The integration within Google Cloud Platform is very good."
"The product's installation process is easy...The tool's maintenance part is somewhat easy."
 

Cons

"It requires some application specific connectors which are lacking. This needs to be added."
"Areas for improvement include implementing multi-storage support to differentiate between database stores based on data age and optimizing storage costs."
"It could have more integration with different platforms."
"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."
"Recently, there has been a lot of buzz about Confluent charging high fees while not offering features that match those of other tools."
"Confluent has a good monitoring tool, but it's not customizable."
"It could have more themes. The themes in the version I'm using are very limited; they offer two to three themes."
"Confluent's price needs improvement."
"The technical support is very hard to reach."
"I would like Google Cloud Dataflow to be integrated with IT data flow and other related services to make it easier to use as it is a complex tool."
"Occasionally, dealing with a huge volume of data causes failure due to array size."
"There are certain challenges regarding the Google Cloud Composer which can be improved."
"They should do a market survey and then make improvements."
"Compared to other support systems, such as those in Braze, Tealium, Google, and others like Adobe, Google Cloud takes more time because it is a bigger company."
"Promoting the technology more broadly would help increase its adoption."
"Google Cloud Data Flow can improve by having full simple integration with Kafka topics. It's not that complicated, but it could improve a bit. The UI is easy to use but the experience could be better. There are other tools available that do a better job."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is cheaper than other products."
"Confluent is an expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"Confluent is expensive, I would prefer, Apache Kafka over Confluent because of the high cost of maintenance."
"It comes with a high cost."
"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 has a yearly license, which is a bit high because it's on a per-user basis."
"The price of the solution depends on many factors, such as how they pay for tools in the company and its size."
"The solution is not very expensive."
"Google Cloud is slightly cheaper than AWS."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate Google Cloud Dataflow's pricing a four out of ten."
"The tool is cheap."
"Google Cloud Dataflow is a cheap solution."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven to eight out of ten."
"The solution is cost-effective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Streaming Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
920,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Retailer
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Construction Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise17
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise12
 

Questions from the Community

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 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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Cloud Dataflow?
Pricing is normal. It is part of a package received from Google, and they are not charging us too high.
What needs improvement with Google Cloud Dataflow?
I feel there could be something that they can introduce, such as when we have data in the tables, a feature that creates a unique persona of the user automatically, so we do not have to do that man...
What is your primary use case for Google Cloud Dataflow?
The primary use case for Google Cloud Dataflow is when a brand has a lot of data and wants to store it in their warehouse. They can use BigQuery to store their data or use big data solutions to sto...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Google Dataflow
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ING, Priceline.com, Nordea, Target, RBC, Tivo, Capital One, Chartboost
Absolutdata, Backflip Studios, Bluecore, Claritics, Crystalloids, Energyworx, GenieConnect, Leanplum, Nomanini, Redbus, Streak, TabTale
Find out what your peers are saying about Confluent vs. Google Cloud Dataflow and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.