We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus and Red Hat Fuse based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The multi-approach and the multi-capabilities are valuable."
"It is a stable solution."
"The biggest advantage of this solution is that it is very easy to learn, and very easy to build applications."
"The solution's features are all quite useful. We use all of them."
"The message queue connectors are the most valuable feature. They have built-in connectors for most of the systems, like SAP and Oracle Database."
"The cost is pretty cheap, compared to what else is available in the market."
"The most valuable feature is that it's robust and its time to market is very short."
"Facilitates communication between parties and legacy systems."
"The most valuable part of Fuse is the fact that it's based on Red Hat Apache Camel. It is really good that it already comes with so many different connectors. That makes it relatively easy to use. We use their XML definition to define the routes, making it really easy to define the routing."
"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."
"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."
"We usually had used PowerCenter for master data integration (by replication). But in some cases, it was better to use Fuse for providing the master data online. It doesn't make it necessary to replicate data."
"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."
"One of the features I found most valuable in Red Hat Fuse is that it has a lot of containers so you won't have to worry about load balancing. In the past, there was a cut-off, but nowadays, Red Hat Fuse is moving off of that, so my team is utilizing it the most for load balancing, particularly running goal applications and three to five containers. There's automatic load balancing so you won't have to worry too much. I also found that component-wise, you don't have to do much coding in Red Hat Fuse because everything is configurable, for example, XML-based coding. Coding isn't that difficult. Performance-wise, I also found the solution to be quite good and its processing is quite fast. My team is processing a huge amount of data with the help of Red Hat Fuse."
"It's very lightweight. There's no need for any specialized tools in order to deploy any service for Red Hat Fuse."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"They should add connectors to banking applications and other specific industries."
"To scale virtically, is difficult."
"This solution would benefit from improvements to the configuration interface."
"I think security should be more simplified."
"The performance needs to be enhanced when working with the Toolkit."
"Its licensing or subscription model should be improved for more flexible adoption. There should also be more ease of use."
"The cloud deployment of the IBM Integration Bus should be made easier."
"Licensing is too high. It is quite expensive."
"The solution will be discontinued in 2024."
"The web tools need to be updated."
"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."
"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."
"As its learning curve is quite steep, developer dependency will always be there in the case of a Red Hat Fuse development. This should be improved for developers. There should be some built-in connectors so the grind of the developer can be reduced."
"It might help if, in the documentation, there were a comments section or some kind of community input. I might read a page of documentation and not fully understand everything, or it might not quite answer the question I had. If there were a section associated with it where people could discuss the same topic, that might be helpful because somebody else might have already asked the question that I had."
"What needs to be improved in Red Hat Fuse is on the development side because when you use it for development purposes, it lacks a user interface compared to what MuleSoft has, so it's a bit difficult for users."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 63 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 23 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Fuse writes "Configurable, doesn't require much coding, and has an automatic load balancing feature, but its development features need improvement". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, Oracle Service Bus, webMethods Integration Server and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, webMethods Integration Server and JBoss ESB. See our IBM Integration Bus vs. Red Hat Fuse report.
See our list of best ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) vendors.
We monitor all ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.