Compare Confluent and IBM Event Streams 
- Users report that Confluent excels in real-time processing with a score of 9.0, while IBM Event Streams achieves a perfect score of 10.0, indicating that IBM's solution may offer superior capabilities for immediate data handling.
- Reviewers mention that Confluent has a strong integration score of 8.8, but IBM Event Streams outperforms with a score of 9.3, suggesting that IBM provides a more seamless experience when connecting with various data sources.
- G2 users highlight that Confluent's ease of use is rated at 8.4, which is lower than IBM Event Streams' impressive score of 9.5, indicating that users may find IBM's interface more intuitive and user-friendly.
- Users on G2 report that Confluent's data transformation capabilities score 8.1, while IBM Event Streams scores higher at 8.7, suggesting that IBM may offer more robust tools for transforming data effectively.
- Reviewers say that Confluent's quality of support is rated at 8.3, which is slightly better than IBM Event Streams' score of 8.1, indicating that users may have a marginally better experience with Confluent's customer service.
- Users report that Confluent has a strong focus on real-time analytics with a score of 8.9, but IBM Event Streams also shines in this area, suggesting that both products are competitive, though IBM may have a slight edge in overall performance.
Confluent provides as much or as little assistance as needed to get you up and running with Kafka without the complexity and operational burden of running it yourself. We prototype using local dockerized Kafka services and flip over to the managed...
The cost is a bit prohibitive for the pay per use cluster since ksqldb creates so many internal topics (changelogs, repartitions) and the pricing for managed ksqldb is very constraining, and UDFs are not supported.
Since its built on Kafka, there's more reachability among the people who uses it and the better built interface is a very positive side among other competitors. And it's very easy to manage and plan different events. Much helpful!
Very limited capabilities out of the box, and slow in features being released for our dedicated environment.
Confluent provides as much or as little assistance as needed to get you up and running with Kafka without the complexity and operational burden of running it yourself. We prototype using local dockerized Kafka services and flip over to the managed...
Since its built on Kafka, there's more reachability among the people who uses it and the better built interface is a very positive side among other competitors. And it's very easy to manage and plan different events. Much helpful!
The cost is a bit prohibitive for the pay per use cluster since ksqldb creates so many internal topics (changelogs, repartitions) and the pricing for managed ksqldb is very constraining, and UDFs are not supported.
Very limited capabilities out of the box, and slow in features being released for our dedicated environment.
