Apache Kafka vs. HPE Data Fabric

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Apache Kafka
Score 7.7 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
HPE Data Fabric
Score 9.4 out of 10
N/A
HPE Data Fabric (formerly MapR, acquired by HPE in 2019) is a software-defined datastore and file system that simplifies data management and analytics by unifying data across core, edge, and multicloud sources into a single platform.N/A
Pricing
Apache KafkaHPE Data Fabric
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache KafkaHPE Data Fabric
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache KafkaHPE Data Fabric
Best Alternatives
Apache KafkaHPE Data Fabric
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.6 out of 10
Cloudera Manager
Cloudera Manager
Score 9.9 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.6 out of 10
IBM Analytics Engine
IBM Analytics Engine
Score 7.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache KafkaHPE Data Fabric
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
7.2
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache KafkaHPE Data Fabric
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
If you need Hadoop and just need raw speed for I/O and have a Hadoop savvy group of engineers who don't need/like web UIs, then MapR is a great fit for you. If you are new to Hadoop or have DevOps folks that are not Hadoop gurus, choosing MapR as your Hadoop vendor will have a steeper learning curve as you will need to do more training and build more admin consoles for them.
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
  • MapR allows easy integration with HBase and MapR DB.
  • Easy trial server setup for product testing.
  • Excellent training program to help new users get up-to-date with MapR and related products.
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
  • I think MapR's main problem is name recognition. Hortonworks and Cloudera both are big names in the industry, but their deployment mechanisms are a little more difficult to use, especially when trying to fully automate it's deployment.
  • Documentation could always be better. But really, if that's your main weakness, it's everybody's weakness.
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
No answers on this topic
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
No answers on this topic
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
No answers on this topic
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
Hortonworks and Cloudera are both sort of hacky. We have to do a lot of extra steps to automate those two. MapR has far fewer issues and doesn't force you into a once size fits all deployment scenario. There are multiple ways to deploy and some are more amenable to automation, MapR just has that in spades
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
  • Less manual intervention for maintaining a cluster.
Read full review
ScreenShots