Red Hat Fuse Reviews

Organizations implementing Red Hat Fuse have experienced faster service delivery, though the benefits appear gradually following multiple integrations. Users note a notable total cost of ownership reduction, especially with cloud deployments, contributing to financial savings. However, upfront expenses are significant, impacting initial financial expectations. Some benefits were observed, aligning with user anticipation, while licensing models aid in managing ongoing costs. Overall, Red Hat Fuse has shown a return, albeit not consistently meeting all expectations.

Enterprise buyers find Red Hat Fuse pricing competitive, offering an open-source alternative that can be free or involve affordable yearly subscriptions. While some perceive it as costly due to implementation and consulting fees, many appreciate its lower cost compared to competitors like MuleSoft and IBM. The licensing is typically subscription-based, and support is a valuable aspect for those prioritizing enterprise-level assistance. Pricing often varies depending on negotiated deals and packages.

• "You need to pay for the license. It's not free."
• "We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it."
• "The solution doesn't have independent licensing."

Organizations primarily utilize Red Hat Fuse for integrating various systems and applications, including server connections and external sites. It supports microservices, messaging, and data transformation, employing Apache Camel. Integrated with ActiveMQ in healthcare, it acts as a hub for electronic records. It facilitates connections between ERP and legacy systems, reduces adaptation efforts, and supports API management. Users appreciate its compatibility and ease of use, aiding integration across on-premises and cloud environments.

Customers of Red Hat Fuse generally find its support responsive and helpful, with some appreciating quick resolution and expertise. However, others mention areas for improvement, like response time and documentation, especially for newer technologies. Some experienced delays and felt documentation and community resources could be better. Ratings vary widely, with scores ranging from satisfactory to excellent. Overall, they express a mix of satisfaction and areas needing enhancement, depending on their experiences and expectations.

Red Hat Fuse’s initial setup varies in complexity, with some finding it straightforward due to available guides and containerization features, while others encounter challenges. Familiarity with Java and Git repositories helps speed up deployment. Complex use cases or lack of experience can extend the timeline. Some prefer using containers on platforms like OpenShift and Azure for easier deployment. The setup may require technical knowledge, and dependency management can be a hurdle for beginners.

Red Hat Fuse is highly scalable due to containerization, supporting horizontal and vertical scaling. It handles numerous concurrent connections effectively and can accommodate many users and integrations. Deployment impacts scalability, with cloud options offering easier scalability than on-prem solutions. Organizations plan increased usage, leveraging scalability for expanding projects. Reviews highlight satisfaction with scalability, integration capabilities, and adaptability, especially for medium-sized enterprises, with many users finding it comparable to leading alternatives in various regions.

Red Hat Fuse is highly stable, with users experiencing no failures or memory restarts over extended periods. It is praised for consistent performance, reliability, and effective upgrades. Users report 99.999% availability and successful deployment in complex environments. While interactions with Windows present challenges, it works well on Java, Apache, and Linux. Stability ratings are high despite dependencies and configuration requirements. Many have implemented it across multiple scenarios with positive results.