IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Mule ESB vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."

"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."

"It's reliable for our day-to-day operations, ensuring fast and secure data integration across different systems."

"The solution has good integration."

"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."

"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."

"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."

"IBM WebSphere Message Broker is one of the best middleware solutions"

"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."

"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."

"What Mule provides out-of-box is a sufficient product."

"The setup is straightforward."

"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."

"Mule ESB is a very easy-to-use and user-friendly solution."

"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."

"Scalability and load balancing."

"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."

"Red Hat Fuse's best features are that it's very easy to set up and maintain."

"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."

"The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful."

"The solution is stable. We have gone for months or years without any issue. There are no memory restarts, so from my point of view, it's very stable."

"It's very lightweight. There's no need for any specialized tools in order to deploy any service for Red Hat Fuse."

"More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect."

"This solution's adaptability to our use case has helped us integrate our systems seamlessly."

"It is currently a weighty product."

"As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordingly."

"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

"The solution can add container engines such as docker."

"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."

"Community editions need more attention."

"There's room for improvement in multi-file transfer functionality. It's not convenient when using MuleSoft, and it should have better capability for handling large amounts of data. For example, applications like GoAnywhere can handle huge chunks of data, so the tool should also have something to facilitate that aspect of integration."

"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."

"The initial setup could be more straightforward."

"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."

"There are some features on the commercial version of the solution that would be great if they were on the community version. Additionally, if they added more authorization features it would be helpful."

"The initial setup is not easy."

"I cannot say that installation with Kubernetes needs to be improved to be less tricky, but more information is needed from MuleSoft. They do not help much with Kubernetes, so we should have a person who is well-versed in Kubernetes to handle this."

"What could be improved in Red Hat Fuse is the deployment process because it's still very heavy. It's containerized, but now with Spring Boot and other microservices-related containers, deployment is still very heavy. Red Hat Fuse still has room for improvement in terms of becoming more containerized and more oriented."

"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."

"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."

"My company doesn't have any experience with other messaging tools, so it's difficult to mention what areas could be improved in Red Hat Fuse, but it could be pricing because I find it expensive."

"Containerization is one key area where the product can improve"

"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."

"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."

"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."

"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."

"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."

"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"

"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."

"The solution is expensive."

"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"The solution is expensive."

"This product is cheaper than some offered by other vendors, although there is a problem because you have to pay for some third-party adapters."

"Most of the challenges that I had with this solution were for smaller customers. There is not a good licensing model or pricing model. It is more expensive than other solutions, and that's the downside of MuleSoft. I had to be creative to be able to sell it to the business, but we did. This is something they have to work on because for large companies, it's affordable, but for small and medium businesses, it's very hard to sell."

"Plan your licensing model (cloud or on-premises or hybrid) that will allow seamless integration with new partners."

"Mule ESB is an expensive solution."

"The licensing is yearly, and there are additional fees for services."

"The price of the Mule ESB commercial version is expensive. However, they have a free community version."

"The various features and components for this solution are no longer free."

"The solution is expensive."

"The most important feature of Fuse is the cost. It is open source and a cheap option for an ESB. So, most of the clients in the Middle East and Asian countries prefer this ESB. Other ESBs, like MuleSoft and IBM API Connect, are pretty expensive. Because it is open source, Red Hat Fuse is the cheapest solution, providing almost every integration capability."

"We found other solutions were more costly."

"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."

"After doing some Googling and comparisons, the main standouts were MuleSoft and Red Hat Fuse. One of the big factors in our decision to go with Fuse was the licensing cost. It was cheaper to go with Fuse."

"Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."

"Our license for Red Hat Fuse is around $27,000 per year, which is very expensive."

"You need to pay for the license. It's not free."

"We are paying around $24 million across five years."