Spark vs. Flink: Key Differences and How to Choose

By on
Read more about Gilad David Maayan.

Apache Spark is an open-source, distributed computing system that provides a fast and scalable framework for big data processing and analytics. The Spark architecture is designed to handle data processing tasks across large clusters of computers, offering fault tolerance, parallel processing, and in-memory data storage capabilities. 

Spark supports various programming languages, such as Python (via the PySpark API), Scala, and Java, and includes libraries for machine learning, graph processing, and streaming analytics.

Apache Flink, on the other hand, is an open-source, distributed stream and batch processing framework designed for high-performance, scalable, and fault-tolerant data processing. Flink is capable of handling both real-time and historical data, providing low-latency and high-throughput capabilities. 

Flink seamlessly integrates with the Hadoop ecosystem, allowing it to leverage Hadoop’s distributed storage systems, like HDFS, and resource management frameworks, such as YARN and Mesos, for large-scale data processing tasks.

Spark vs. Flink: Key Differences

Iterative Processing

Spark offers iterative processing through its resilient distributed datasets (RDDs) and directed acyclic graph (DAG) execution model. Spark is well-suited for batch processing, but it can also handle iterative processing and streaming using micro-batching.

Flink was designed primarily for stream processing, with native support for iterative algorithms. Flink processes data using a continuous streaming model, offering lower latency and better handling of out-of-order events compared to Spark’s micro-batching approach.

Fault Tolerance

Spark achieves fault tolerance through RDDs, which are immutable and partitioned data structures that can be recomputed in case of failures. Additionally, Spark stores lineage information to track dependencies and recover lost data.

Flink uses a distributed snapshot-based approach for fault tolerance, capturing the state of the application at specific checkpoints. This allows Flink to recover quickly and consistently from failures with minimal impact on performance.


Spark employs the Catalyst optimizer, which is an extensible query optimizer for data transformation and processing. Spark also includes the Tungsten execution engine that optimizes the physical execution of operations for better performance.

Flink has a cost-based optimizer for batch processing, which analyzes the data flow and selects the most efficient execution plan based on available resources and data characteristics. Flink’s stream processing also benefits from pipeline-based execution and low-latency scheduling.


Spark provides windowing functions for processing streaming data within fixed or sliding time windows. However, Spark’s windowing is less flexible and efficient compared to Flink’s, due to its reliance on micro-batching.

Flink has advanced support for windowing, including event-time and processing-time-based windows, session windows, and flexible custom window functions. Flink’s windowing is more efficient and accurate for stream processing as it is designed specifically for continuous data streams.

Language Support

Spark supports multiple programming languages, such as Scala, Java, Python, and R. This broad language support makes Spark accessible to a wide range of developers and data scientists.

Flink also supports various programming languages, including Java, Scala, and Python. However, Flink’s support for Python is less mature compared to Spark, which may limit its appeal to Python-centric data science teams.

Ecosystem and Community

Spark has a larger and more mature ecosystem, with a wide range of connectors, libraries, and tools available. This can make it easier to find resources, support, and third-party integrations for your project.

Flink, while growing in popularity, has a smaller ecosystem compared to Spark. However, it is continuously evolving and adding new features, making it a strong contender in the big data processing space.

Spark vs. Flink: How to Choose

Choosing between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project. Here are some factors to consider when deciding between Spark and Flink:

  • Data processing requirements: If your data processing requirements involve batch processing, Spark may be the better choice. If you need to process streaming data, Flink may be a better fit, as it was designed with streaming in mind.
  • Performance: Both Spark and Flink are designed to be highly scalable and performant, but Flink is generally considered to be faster than Spark in processing streaming data.
  • Ease of use: Spark has a larger community and a more mature ecosystem, making it easier to find documentation, tutorials, and third-party tools. However, Flink’s APIs are often considered to be more intuitive and easier to use.
  • Integration with other tools: Spark has better integration with other big data tools such as Hadoop, Hive, and Pig. Flink has a more limited set of integrations but is designed to work well with Apache Kafka.
  • Availability of resources: If you have an existing team with experience in one of the systems, it may be easier to stick with that system to avoid a learning curve. Both Spark and Flink have active communities and resources available online.


In conclusion, both Apache Spark and Apache Flink are powerful and versatile distributed data processing frameworks, each with its unique strengths and capabilities. Spark excels in batch processing and offers mature support for various programming languages, making it suitable for a wide range of use cases. On the other hand, Flink shines in stream processing, providing low-latency performance and advanced windowing functions for real-time analytics.

The choice between Spark vs. Flink depends on your specific use cases, requirements, and team expertise. It is crucial to thoroughly evaluate both frameworks in the context of your project and consider factors such as processing needs, latency requirements, iterative processing, language support, ecosystem, and learning curve. By carefully assessing these factors and conducting proof-of-concept tests, you can make an informed decision and select the best framework to meet your big data processing challenges.