KafkaHQ vs Kowl

Overview

KafkaHQ

Stacks9

Followers38

Votes0

Kowl

Stacks12

Followers17

Votes0

KafkaHQ vs Kowl: What are the differences?

Introduction

KafkaHQ and Kowl are both web-based user interfaces for Apache Kafka, but they have several key differences that set them apart. In this article, we will explore the differences between KafkaHQ and Kowl in specific detail.

Installation and Setup: While KafkaHQ is a standalone application that needs to be installed and configured separately, Kowl is a Docker image that can be run with a simple Docker command, making it easier to set up and get started with.
Interface Design: KafkaHQ provides a simple and minimalistic user interface with a focus on functionality, whereas Kowl features a more modern and visually appealing design with additional interactive features like auto-refresh and customizable views.
Cluster Management: KafkaHQ offers a comprehensive cluster management interface, allowing users to create and manage topics, partitions, and consumer groups. On the other hand, Kowl places more emphasis on real-time monitoring and inspection of Kafka topics, providing detailed information about messages, offsets, and consumer lag.
Security Features: KafkaHQ supports basic authentication via username and password, while Kowl provides more advanced security features such as support for SSL/TLS encryption, integration with LDAP and OAuth, and role-based access control.
Integration with Metadata Providers: Kowl integrates seamlessly with Confluent's cluster metadata provider, allowing users to access metadata such as consumer group offsets. KafkaHQ, on the other hand, does not have direct integration with metadata providers but can reach metadata through other Kafka clients.
Community and Support: KafkaHQ has a larger and more established user community with active support and regular updates. While Kowl is relatively newer, it is backed by the same team as KafkaJS, a widely used Kafka client library, and has a growing community with regular updates.

In summary, KafkaHQ and Kowl differ in terms of installation and setup, interface design, cluster management capabilities, security features, integration with metadata providers, and community support. Understanding these differences can help users choose the most suitable user interface for their Kafka deployment.

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)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

KafkaHQ	Kowl
It is a Kafka GUI for topics, topics data, consumers group, schema registry, connect and more. It works with modern Kafka cluster.	It is a web application that helps you to explore messages in your Apache Kafka cluster and get better insights on what is actually happening in your Kafka cluster in the most comfortable way.
Works with modern Kafka cluster (1.0+); Connection on standard or ssl, sasl cluster; Multi cluster; View data, offset, key, timestamp & headers; Automatic deserializarion of avro message encoded with schema registry; Configurations view; Logs view; Delete a record; Sort view; Filter per partitions; Filter with a starting time; Filter data with a search string	Supports Kafka Clusters newer than v1.0+; Topic overview; Show disk usage per topic or per broker; List all consumer groups of a given topic; List topic configuration; Message viewer; Avro, JSON, XML, ASCII and binary support; Search specific message using any filters written in JavaScript; Consumer group lag monitoring; Very good UI & UX
Statistics
Stacks 9	Stacks 12
Followers 38	Followers 17
Votes 0	Votes 0
Integrations
Java Kafka	Kafka

What are some alternatives to KafkaHQ, Kowl?

Kafka Manager

This interface makes it easier to identify topics which are unevenly distributed across the cluster or have partition leaders unevenly distributed across the cluster. It supports management of multiple clusters, preferred replica election, replica re-assignment, and topic creation. It is also great for getting a quick bird’s eye view of the cluster.

Kafka REST

It provides a RESTful interface to a Kafka cluster. It makes it easy to produce and consume messages, view the state of the cluster, and perform administrative actions without using the native Kafka protocol or clients. Examples of use cases include reporting data to Kafka from any frontend app built in any language, ingesting messages into a stream processing framework that doesn't yet support Kafka, and scripting administrative actions.

rdkafka

This gem is a modern Kafka client library for Ruby based on librdkafka. It wraps the production-ready C client using the ffi gem and targets Kafka 1.0+ and Ruby 2.3+.

Kafka UI

It is a simple tool that makes your data flows observable, helps find and troubleshoot issues faster and deliver optimal performance. Its lightweight dashboard makes it easy to track key metrics of your Kafka clusters - Brokers, Topics, Partitions, Production, and Consumption.

Kafdrop

It is a web UI for viewing Kafka topics and browsing consumer groups. The tool displays information such as brokers, topics, partitions, consumers, and lets you view messages.

Lenses

It is a simple and secure self service DataOps platform, to operate with confidence on Apache Kafka & Kubernetes.

KafkaCenter

It is a unified one-stop platform for Kafka cluster management and maintenance, producer / consumer monitoring, and use of ecological components.

DoctorKafka

DoctorKafka can automatically detect broker failure and reassign the workload on the failed nodes to other nodes. DoctorKafka can also perform load balancing based on topic partitions's network usage, and makes sure that broker network usage does not exceed the defined settings.

Kattlo CLI

It is for enterprises that need a stable way to change Apache Kafka configurations. It maintains the configuration and avoids drifts.

Monokl

It is an open source downloadable desktop tool that works across all platforms and provides a simple way to visualize the performance of your Kafka cluster.

Related Comparisons

KafkaHQ vs Kowl: What are the differences?

Introduction

Installation and Setup: While KafkaHQ is a standalone application that needs to be installed and configured separately, Kowl is a Docker image that can be run with a simple Docker command, making it easier to set up and get started with.
Interface Design: KafkaHQ provides a simple and minimalistic user interface with a focus on functionality, whereas Kowl features a more modern and visually appealing design with additional interactive features like auto-refresh and customizable views.
Cluster Management: KafkaHQ offers a comprehensive cluster management interface, allowing users to create and manage topics, partitions, and consumer groups. On the other hand, Kowl places more emphasis on real-time monitoring and inspection of Kafka topics, providing detailed information about messages, offsets, and consumer lag.
Security Features: KafkaHQ supports basic authentication via username and password, while Kowl provides more advanced security features such as support for SSL/TLS encryption, integration with LDAP and OAuth, and role-based access control.
Integration with Metadata Providers: Kowl integrates seamlessly with Confluent's cluster metadata provider, allowing users to access metadata such as consumer group offsets. KafkaHQ, on the other hand, does not have direct integration with metadata providers but can reach metadata through other Kafka clients.
Community and Support: KafkaHQ has a larger and more established user community with active support and regular updates. While Kowl is relatively newer, it is backed by the same team as KafkaJS, a widely used Kafka client library, and has a growing community with regular updates.

KafkaHQ vs Kowl

Overview