StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Utilities
  3. Background Jobs
  4. Message Queue
  5. Kafka vs WCF

Kafka vs WCF

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Kafka
Kafka
Stacks24.2K
Followers22.3K
Votes607
GitHub Stars31.2K
Forks14.8K
WCF
WCF
Stacks125
Followers107
Votes5

Kafka vs WCF: What are the differences?

In the context of web development, it is important to understand the key differences between Kafka and WCF. These two technologies serve different purposes and have distinct features that set them apart.

  1. Scalability and Performance: Kafka is specifically designed to handle high volumes of data and is highly scalable, making it suitable for use cases with large data streams and real-time data processing. On the other hand, WCF is more focused on enabling communication between different components of a distributed system and may not be as optimized for handling high data loads.

  2. Message Format: Kafka uses a publish-subscribe messaging model, where producers publish messages to topics, and consumers subscribe to these topics to receive the messages. The messages in Kafka are persisted in a log-like structure, allowing consumers to access them at any time. In contrast, WCF supports various communication models, including request-response, one-way, and duplex, and it uses SOAP or REST protocols for message exchange.

  3. Fault Tolerance: Kafka provides built-in fault tolerance by replicating messages across multiple broker nodes, ensuring that data is not lost even if some nodes fail. This makes Kafka highly resilient and suitable for mission-critical applications. In comparison, WCF relies on the underlying transport protocol (such as TCP or HTTP) for fault tolerance, and additional measures need to be implemented to achieve high availability.

  4. Technology Stack: Kafka is part of the Apache open-source ecosystem and is predominantly used with other big data technologies like Apache Spark and Apache Storm. It is commonly used in scenarios where large-scale data processing and analytics are required. On the other hand, WCF is a Microsoft technology and is typically used in the .NET ecosystem for building distributed applications and services.

  5. Community and Support: Kafka has a large and active open-source community, which translates into extensive documentation, resources, and support from the community. WCF, being a Microsoft technology, also has a substantial user base and ample community support, but it may not have the same level of open-source community presence as Kafka.

In summary, Kafka is a high-performance, scalable messaging system designed for handling large volumes of data and real-time processing, while WCF is a communication framework primarily used for building distributed applications in the .NET ecosystem. Both technologies have their distinct strengths and are suited for different use cases.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Kafka, WCF

viradiya
viradiya

Apr 12, 2020

Needs adviceonAngularJSAngularJSASP.NET CoreASP.NET CoreMSSQLMSSQL

We are going to develop a microservices-based application. It consists of AngularJS, ASP.NET Core, and MSSQL.

We have 3 types of microservices. Emailservice, Filemanagementservice, Filevalidationservice

I am a beginner in microservices. But I have read about RabbitMQ, but come to know that there are Redis and Kafka also in the market. So, I want to know which is best.

933k views933k
Comments
Ishfaq
Ishfaq

Feb 28, 2020

Needs advice

Our backend application is sending some external messages to a third party application at the end of each backend (CRUD) API call (from UI) and these external messages take too much extra time (message building, processing, then sent to the third party and log success/failure), UI application has no concern to these extra third party messages.

So currently we are sending these third party messages by creating a new child thread at end of each REST API call so UI application doesn't wait for these extra third party API calls.

I want to integrate Apache Kafka for these extra third party API calls, so I can also retry on failover third party API calls in a queue(currently third party messages are sending from multiple threads at the same time which uses too much processing and resources) and logging, etc.

Question 1: Is this a use case of a message broker?

Question 2: If it is then Kafka vs RabitMQ which is the better?

804k views804k
Comments
Roman
Roman

Senior Back-End Developer, Software Architect

Feb 12, 2019

ReviewonKafkaKafka

I use Kafka because it has almost infinite scaleability in terms of processing events (could be scaled to process hundreds of thousands of events), great monitoring (all sorts of metrics are exposed via JMX).

Downsides of using Kafka are:

  • you have to deal with Zookeeper
  • you have to implement advanced routing yourself (compared to RabbitMQ it has no advanced routing)
10.8k views10.8k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Kafka
Kafka
WCF
WCF

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

It is a framework for building service-oriented applications. Using this, you can send data as asynchronous messages from one service endpoint to another. A service endpoint can be part of a continuously available service hosted by IIS, or it can be a service hosted in an application.

Written at LinkedIn in Scala;Used by LinkedIn to offload processing of all page and other views;Defaults to using persistence, uses OS disk cache for hot data (has higher throughput then any of the above having persistence enabled);Supports both on-line as off-line processing
-
Statistics
GitHub Stars
31.2K
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Forks
14.8K
GitHub Forks
-
Stacks
24.2K
Stacks
125
Followers
22.3K
Followers
107
Votes
607
Votes
5
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 126
    High-throughput
  • 119
    Distributed
  • 92
    Scalable
  • 86
    High-Performance
  • 66
    Durable
Cons
  • 32
    Non-Java clients are second-class citizens
  • 29
    Needs Zookeeper
  • 9
    Operational difficulties
  • 5
    Terrible Packaging
Pros
  • 5
    Classes

What are some alternatives to Kafka, WCF?

Firebase

Firebase

Firebase is a cloud service designed to power real-time, collaborative applications. Simply add the Firebase library to your application to gain access to a shared data structure; any changes you make to that data are automatically synchronized with the Firebase cloud and with other clients within milliseconds.

Socket.IO

Socket.IO

It enables real-time bidirectional event-based communication. It works on every platform, browser or device, focusing equally on reliability and speed.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

Celery

Celery

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

PubNub

PubNub

PubNub makes it easy for you to add real-time capabilities to your apps, without worrying about the infrastructure. Build apps that allow your users to engage in real-time across mobile, browser, desktop and server.

Pusher

Pusher

Pusher is the category leader in delightful APIs for app developers building communication and collaboration features.

Amazon SQS

Amazon SQS

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

NSQ

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

SignalR

SignalR

SignalR allows bi-directional communication between server and client. Servers can now push content to connected clients instantly as it becomes available. SignalR supports Web Sockets, and falls back to other compatible techniques for older browsers. SignalR includes APIs for connection management (for instance, connect and disconnect events), grouping connections, and authorization.

Ably

Ably

Ably offers WebSockets, stream resume, history, presence, and managed third-party integrations to make it simple to build, extend, and deliver digital realtime experiences at scale.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase