IBM Confluent vs. Microsoft Application Server (deprecated)
| Product | Rating | Most Used By | Product Summary | Starting Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
IBM Confluent | Score9.1 out of 10 | N/A | IBM Confluent helps enterprises stream, connect, process, govern and serve real-time data across hybrid environments. | $385 per month |
Microsoft Application Server (deprecated) | Score7.3 out of 10 | N/A | Application Server is an expanded server role in the Windows Server® 2008 operating system. It provided an integrated environment for deploying and running custom, server-based business applications. These applications respond to requests that arrive over the network from remote client computers or from other applications. Application Server is deprecated. | N/A |
| IBM Confluent | Microsoft Application Server (deprecated) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Editions & Modules |
| No answers on this topic | ||||||||||||||
| Offerings |
| |||||||||||||||
| Entry-level Setup Fee | No setup fee | No setup fee | ||||||||||||||
| Additional Details | Confluent monthly bills are based upon resource consumption, i.e., you are only charged for the resources you use when you actually use them: Stream: Kafka clusters are billed for eCKUs/CKUs ($/hour), networking ($/GB), and storage ($/GB-hour). Connect: Use of connectors is billed based on throughput ($/GB) and a task base price ($/task/hour). Process: Use of stream processing with Confluent Cloud for Apache Flink is calculated based on CFUs ($/minute). Govern: Use of Stream Governance is billed based on environment ($/hour). Confluent storage and throughput is calculated in binary gigabytes (GB), where 1 GB is 2^30 bytes. This unit of measurement is also known as a gibibyte (GiB). Please also note that all prices are stated in United States Dollars unless specifically stated otherwise. All billing computations are conducted in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). | — | ||||||||||||||
| More Pricing Information | ||||||||||||||||
| IBM Confluent | Microsoft Application Server (deprecated) | |
|---|---|---|
| Considered Both Products | No answer on this topic | No answer on this topic |
| Key User Insights | ||
| Would buy again | ||
No answers on this topic | 100% Would buy again 7 Answers | |
| Delivers good value for the price | ||
No answers on this topic | 100% Delivers good value for the price 7 Answers | |
| Happy with the feature set | ||
No answers on this topic | 100% Happy with the feature set 7 Answers | |
| Lived up to sales and marketing promises | ||
No answers on this topic | 100% Lived up to sales and marketing promises 6 Answers | |
| Implementation went as expected | ||
No answers on this topic | 100% Implementation went as expected 7 Answers | |
| IBM Confluent | Microsoft Application Server (deprecated) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application Servers |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| IBM Confluent | Microsoft Application Server (deprecated) | |
|---|---|---|
| Small Businesses | Amazon SNS Score8.7 out of 10 | NGINX Score9.1 out of 10 |
| Medium-sized Companies | Amazon SNS Score8.7 out of 10 | Oracle WebLogic Server Score7.3 out of 10 |
| Enterprises | Google Cloud Pub/Sub Score8.8 out of 10 | NGINX Score9.1 out of 10 |
| All Alternatives | View all alternatives | View all alternatives |
| IBM Confluent | Microsoft Application Server (deprecated) | |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood to Recommend | 10.0 | 9.0 |
| Usability | - | 10.0 |
| Support Rating | 10.0 | 9.0 |
| IBM Confluent | Microsoft Application Server (deprecated) | |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood to Recommend |
|
|
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Usability | No answers on this topic |
|
| Support Rating |
|
|
| Alternatives Considered |
|
|
| Return on Investment |
|
|
| ScreenShots |
