Apache Kafka vs. Redis Software

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Apache Kafka
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Apache Kafka is an open-source stream processing platform developed by the Apache Software Foundation written in Scala and Java. The Kafka event streaming platform is used by thousands of companies for high-performance data pipelines, streaming analytics, data integration, and mission-critical applications.N/A
Redis Software
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Redis is an open source in-memory data structure server and NoSQL database.N/A
Pricing
Apache KafkaRedis Software
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache KafkaRedis Software
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeOptional
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache KafkaRedis Software
Considered Both Products
Apache Kafka
Chose Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka is built for scale. From high throughput and real-time data streaming, it has a strong advantage over RabbitMQ with its low latency. This put Apache Kafka at the forefront as the platform of choice for large datasets messaging and ensuring scalability when data …
Chose Apache Kafka
It had the clustering functionality and gave tolerance against machine failure.
Chose Apache Kafka
- The biggest advantage of using Apache Kafka is that it is cloud agnostic - It handles super high volume, is fault tolerance, high performance
Chose Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka can work at a higher scale as compared to SQS. It can work with higher size per message and millions of messages per second. Moreover it can be scaled horizontally by adding more brokers to the cluster. SQS is good enough for simple use cases like making a task …
Chose Apache Kafka
I used other messaging/queue solutions that are a lot more basic than Confluent Kafka, as well as another solution that is no longer in the market called Xively, which was bought and "buried" by Google. In comparison, these solutions offer way fewer functionalities and respond …
Chose Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka is open-sourced, scales great has cloud agnostics and performs better than Amazon Kinesis [in my view]. Amazon Kinesis has some limitations and vendor lockin is not something I [like]. With Confluent operators you can easily install it on a kubernetes cluster.
Chose Apache Kafka
We really needed to get away from using a SQL database to act as a queue for processing records, so a new solution was needed. Kafka is a leading software application initially designed for queuing messages which is essentially what we were looking for. It has a great user …
Chose Apache Kafka
Kafka is simple and lower in price.
Chose Apache Kafka
For us, Kafka really doesn't have a 1:1 alternative. We have used ActiveMQ extensively and we still use it as a lighter option for small messages. The situation is similar with Redis - although it could be used like a Kafka alternative, we do use it just as a per-component …
Chose Apache Kafka
Apache Kafka is much more scalable and more reliable. Does not depend on memory, works well on rotational disks and that makes it a cheaper to use solution on low hardware requirements. Running multiple consumers on the same topic can also mean processing the same data again …
Chose Apache Kafka
All stack tech helps our app and system. These technologies allow us to have the data available faster between different regions (due to our particular configuration) and thus the data and processing load of each system is lower. This allows the systems to be used more …
Chose Apache Kafka
We had lots of problems with active mq. That is why we started using Apache Kafka.
Chose Apache Kafka
Kafka is not a real messaging broker implementation as RabbitMQ or TIBCO EMS/JMS are. Although it can be used as messaging, we like the idea behind the Kafka (data isn't "passing by," instead it remains centra, so the client can revisit the data if necessary). This also …
Chose Apache Kafka
Confluent Cloud is still based on Apache Kafka but it has a subscription fee so, from a long term perspective, it is wiser to deploy your own Kafka instance that spans public and private cloud. Amazon Kinesis, Google Cloud Pub/Sub do not do well for a very number of messages …
Chose Apache Kafka
I would only use RabbitMQ over Kafka when you need to have delay queues or tons of small topics/queues around.
I don't know too much about Pulsar - currently evaluating it - but it's supposed to have the same or better throughput while allowing for tons of queues. Stay tuned - I …
Chose Apache Kafka
Kafka is faster and more scalable, also "free" as opensource (albeit we deploy using a commercial distribution). Infrastructure tends to be cheaper. On the other hand, projects must adapt to Kafka APIs that sometimes change and BAU increases until a major 1.x version comes out …
Redis Software
Chose Redis Software
Redis Software has a simpler data model than Aerospike.
Memcached doesn't provide any data structures.
Chose Redis Software
UI isn't that great compared to the other competitors.
The management of our memcached cluster was becoming pretty complicated as the application grew in size. Redis is a much better option compared to memcached.
Redis is bit unreliable compared to the alternative RabbitMQ …
Chose Redis Software
We divide projects between Redis and Elasticsearch Service. In some parts or modules one of these two databases fit better than the other.
Chose Redis Software
Alibaba Cloud Elastic Compute Service (ECS) and Amazon ElastiCache
Chose Redis Software
All are good products. MongoDB is a great NoSQL DB but didn't seem to have the high performance caching of Redis. Coherence and Xtreme Scale are expensive. In my opinion for our particular use case, Redis was the clear winner.
Chose Redis Software
Redis is faster, provides documents JSON-wise with the proper odule and it is far more stable than Mongodb (we had really bad experiences with Mongo, especially when ops tends to increase).
Chose Redis Software
DynamoDB is a fully managed key-value store by Amazon. It provides more powerful indexing to the tables, which certainly increases the performance if searching is what you need. However, it is also a lot more expensive to use compared to Redis. If your use case is more on the …
Chose Redis Software
We evaluated Oracle and at first it seems competitive but after the contract term pricing would jump. Heard this from business associates and online communities
Chose Redis Software
Microsoft SQL requires a lot of resources to run at its optimal performance level. Redis runs faster search queries at a reduced cost.
Chose Redis Software
ElastiCache also offers Redis, but it's quite cryptic and you have to pay for support separately (it's quite expensive as well). With Redis Enterprise we were able to set-up our cluster with constant support from their team, and we were even able to set-up a particular set of …
Chose Redis Software
We initially used Memcached for some of the caching and locking solutions we now use Redis for; we found that for the purposes of our system Memcache could not match up to Redis for performance. We also found Redis to be a bit more reliable, but that could have just been down …
Chose Redis Software
I can't evaluate. I didn't use them personally.
Chose Redis Software
We selected Redis over Memcached because Redis provided more client processing options and better server handling with its computations.
Chose Redis Software
We are big users of MySQL and PostgreSQL. We were looking at replacing our aging web page caching technology and found that we could do it in SQL, but there was a NoSQL movement happening at the time. We dabbled a bit in the NoSQL scene just to get an idea of what it was about …
Chose Redis Software
We initially tried ElastiCache with Redis hosting. While it did the job of running Redis, we still had to deal with server sizing. We switched to Redis Cloud since that had auto-scaling and easy to use tools.
Chose Redis Software
It's cheaper than Microsoft Azure offerings.
Chose Redis Software
We prefer DynamoDB whenever possible. We have more predictable performance at the tail end, better isolation and cheaper costs per GB of storage.
Chose Redis Software
Redshift has relatively high latency and thus produces unscalable solution.
Chose Redis Software
MemSQL is awesome and really fast, but extremely expensive.
Features
Apache KafkaRedis Software
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Apache Kafka
-
Ratings
Redis Software
8.6
Ratings
3% below category average
Performance00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Availability00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Concurrency00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Security00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Data model flexibility00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Apache KafkaRedis Software
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.0 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.0 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache KafkaRedis Software
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.7
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.4
(0 ratings)
8.7
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache KafkaRedis Software
Likelihood to Recommend
For brokering messages, Confluent Kafka is well suited since it offers a managed solution ready to use. Scenarios where the solution is not very well suited are for example, where pricing is an issue. The solution costs quite a lot for basic usage (for example: for 3 clusters, pricing is above 100k$ a year).
Read full review
Perfect solution for caching needs. If you have a bottleneck due to frequent data access to your database, then Redis can really help you by diverting those traffic away from your database. Its key/value pair structure also makes data lookup very efficient, providing excellent performance.
Read full review
Pros
  • Apache Kafka is able to handle a large number of I/Os (writes) using 3-4 cheap servers.
  • It scales very well over large workloads and can handle extreme-scale deployments (eg. Linkedin with 300 billion user events each day).
  • The same Kafka setup can be used as a messaging bus, storage system or a log aggregator making it easy to maintain as one system feeding multiple applications.
Read full review
  • Easy for developers to understand. Unlike Riak, which I've used in the past, it's fast without having to worry about eventual consistency.
  • Reliable. With a proper multi-node configuration, it can handle failover instantly.
  • Configurable. We primarily still use Memcache for caching but one of the teams uses Redis for both long-term storage and temporary expiry keys without taking on another external dependency.
  • Fast. We process tens of thousands of RPS and it doesn't skip a beat.
Read full review
Cons
  • The Kafka Tool is a community-made Java application that looks and feels from the past century.
  • Logging can be confusing. This certainly shows when we have to do troubleshooting.
  • Hybrid scenarios - pub/sub, but there are services in and outside a Kubernetes cluster. Then there are a ~3 options, but only 2 (the harder ones) are production-safe.
Read full review
  • Redis is super fast but it comes with a cost. Whole dataset resides in RAM. So it can be costly as primary memory is more costly, then secondary ones.
  • Persistence issues: To achieve it, Redis uses a memory dump to create a persistence snapshot, that's cool. But it requires some Linux Kernel tweaking to avoid performance degradation while the Redis server process is forking. This further causes latency.
  • Master-slave structure side effect: Master-slave architecture comes with its own side effects. Please note that there will be only one master with multiple slaves for replication. All writing goes to the master, which creates more load on the master node. So, when the master goes down, the whole architecture does.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Kafka has suited our use case very well so far. Going forward we are planning to expand our platform manifold so the load on Kafka and our reliance on Kafka is going to increase only.
Read full review
We will definitely continue using Redis because: 1. It is free and open source. 2. We already use it in so many applications, it will be hard for us to let go. 3. There isn't another competitive product that we know of that gives a better performance. 4. We never had any major issues with Redis, so no point turning our backs.
Read full review
Usability
Apache Kafka is highly recommended to develop loosely coupled, real-time processing applications. Also, Apache Kafka provides property based configuration. Producer, Consumer and broker contain their own separate property file
Read full review
It is quite simple to set up for the purpose of managing user sessions in the backend. It can be easily integrated with other products or technologies, such as Spring in Java. If you need to actually display the data stored in Redis in your application this is a bit difficult to understand initially but is possible.
Read full review
Support Rating
Support for Apache Kafka (if willing to pay) is available from Confluent that includes the same time that created Kafka at Linkedin so they know this software in and out. Moreover, Apache Kafka is well known and best practices documents and deployment scenarios are easily available for download. For example, from eBay, Linkedin, Uber, and NYTimes.
Read full review
The support team has always been excellent in handling our mostly questions, rarely problems. They are responsive, find the solution and get us moving forward again. I have never had to escalate a case with them. They have always solved our problems in a very timely manner. I highly commend the support team.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
Whitelisting of the AWS lambda functions.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache Kafka is built for scale. From high throughput and real-time data streaming, it has a strong advantage over RabbitMQ with its low latency. This put Apache Kafka at the forefront as the platform of choice for large datasets messaging and ensuring scalability when data scale up tremendously. RabbitMQ however has its strengths in traditional messaging. Routing and message delivery reliability are the bedrock of RabbitMQ and this is where RabbitMQ excels. In my previous workplace, RabbitMQ was of choice as reliability matters more than scale. In two words. Apache Kafka for scale, RabbitMQ for reliability. And for cloud deployment and large dataset messaging in what I am doing now, Apache Kafka is the default choice.
Read full review
UI isn't that great compared to the other competitors. The management of our memcached cluster was becoming pretty complicated as the application grew in size. Redis is a much better option compared to memcached. Redis is bit unreliable compared to the alternative RabbitMQ especially when it needs to be integrated with Celery.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Positive: bursts of traffic on special holidays are easy to handle because Kafka can absorb and buffer all the messages we need to process long enough to let an understaffed set of back-end services catch up on processing. Hard to put a number to it but we probably save $5k a month having fewer machines running.
  • Positive: makes decoupling the web and API services from the deeper back-end services easier by providing topics as an interface. This allowed us to split up our teams and have them develop independently of each other, speeding up software development.
  • Negative: our engineers have made mistakes such as accidentally dropping a few thousand messages due to the CLI being confusing to use, and as a result a customer lost some of their precious data. I'd say that was more our fault than Kafka's though.
Read full review
  • Existing tools like Redisson that were built over Redis reduced dev time in solving challenging problems, which had a positive impact on ROI.
  • We initially misused Redis for persistent storage which had a negative impact on ROI because we were paying a lot for inactive users.
  • The increased performance we achieved using Redis in areas like locking helped us improve the performance of our system reducing the likelihood of system timeouts.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Redis Software Screenshots

Screenshot of Database configurationScreenshot of Database metricsScreenshot of DatabasesScreenshot of NodesScreenshot of Alerts