Apache Kafka vs. Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform

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
Red Hat JBoss EAP
Score 7.3 out of 10
N/A
N/AN/A
Pricing
Apache KafkaRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache KafkaRed Hat JBoss EAP
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 KafkaRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Features
Apache KafkaRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Application Servers
Comparison of Application Servers features of Product A and Product B
Apache Kafka
-
Ratings
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
8.6
Ratings
8% above category average
IDE support00 Ratings8.10 Ratings
Security management00 Ratings8.60 Ratings
Administration and management00 Ratings8.10 Ratings
Application server performance00 Ratings8.60 Ratings
Installation00 Ratings9.50 Ratings
Open-source standards compliance00 Ratings8.60 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Apache KafkaRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.6 out of 10
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM MQ
IBM MQ
Score 9.6 out of 10
NGINX
NGINX
Score 9.2 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache KafkaRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
5.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.5
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
8.7
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.4
(0 ratings)
5.2
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
8.5
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache KafkaRed Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform
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
Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform (JBoss EAP) is well suited for deploying high transaction Java EE based applications. It supports many popular Java EE web-based frameworks such as Spring, Angular JS, jQuery Mobile, and Google Web Toolkit.
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
  • MOD_CLUSTER integration. JBoss EAP integrates pretty well with mod_cluster. This is an intelligent load balancer especially useful in highly clustered environments.
  • Supports enterprise-grade features such as high availability clustering, distributed caching, messaging etc.
  • Supports deployment in on-premise, virtual and hybrid cloud environments.
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
  • Jboss CLI is a great tool but we had trouble using it to get values that are displayed on Jboss GUI. It also has limitations parsing the applications.xml files and we had to use a mix of jboss-cli and linux bash commands to automate certain application administrative tasks.
  • JBoss doesn't really provides performance tuning recommendations. It would have been nice if it could learn from the current demand vs current settings for things like connection pool, server configurations, garbage collection etc.
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 are planning to migrate away from Jboss to Tomcat as Jboss has shown not interest in supporting OSGi which is heavily used at our shop
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
JBoss overall is easy to use. The installation and deployment of applications are quick. Documentations and support are also readily available.
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
We run a high traffic B2B application on JBoss and it is very stable. Boot time when restarting services is also fast
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
Fast response.
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
WebSphere Application Server is propriety and increases project cost. It is slightly complicated to learn when compared to Jboss EAP. These were the two main reasons why we chose Red Hat JBoss EAP over WebSphere Application Server. Also, JBoss EAP is light weight and requires less server resource
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
  • Jboss EAP is easy to deploy and configure. This lead to lower cost and faster delivery.
  • Even though we have large number of machines running JBoss, we have only two Jboss Administrators. It doesn't requires too much administration and maintenance on daily basis and reduces number of administrators required for large implementations.
Read full review
ScreenShots