We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Red Hat Fuse based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"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."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The solution has good integration."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."
"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."
"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."
"The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful."
"The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."
"The solution has more tooling and options."
"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."
"The installation is quite okay. We don't really change much in the configuration. Most of the time, most of the settings remain with the default and we are able to handle our needs using the default setting."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"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."
"The web tools need to be updated."
"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
"The pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."
"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."
"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". 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 WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and NGINX Plus, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and OpenESB. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Red Hat Fuse report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.
