Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

JBoss ESB vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

JBoss ESB
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat Fuse
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of JBoss ESB is 3.7%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Fuse is 6.4%, down from 7.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Hat Fuse6.4%
JBoss ESB3.7%
Other89.9%
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

AU
Senior Software Engineer at Deloitte
Efficient orchestration and security features improve business processes effortlessly
JBoss ESB should focus on startup and performance as EAP is heavier than lightweight Java frameworks, which impacts microservices and cloud environments. Improvements should include faster start times and reduced memory footprints. Better cold-start performance in containers should be emphasized. Cloud-native features must be enhanced since many enterprises are shifting to Kubernetes and OpenShift, making EAP more cloud-friendly. This could include providing smaller container images, native auto-scaling support, and improved integration with cloud configuration services. Enhancing the developer experience is crucial; while the current configuration is powerful, it can be complex for newcomers. As an experienced user, I navigate it easily, but newcomers struggle due to heavy reliance on XML configuration. Transitioning to a JSON-based configuration or YAML format would be beneficial, and simplifications in clustering setup for local testing would greatly assist users.
Nilay Rathod - PeerSpot reviewer
Chapter Area Lead/GM Group Architecture & IT at Spark New Zealand
Microservices have transformed our integrations and now highlight room to improve AI-driven tooling
There are areas in Red Hat Fuse that have room for improvement. We were recently having a discussion with Red Hat team building agentic AI, which we call AI SDLC. Something that the team is actively working on, but I have not really seen any production-level version of it is MCP. For us to use Red Hat Fuse with AI models, we need MCP so that we can be very confident that it can deliver us a really solid outcome when developers are using it, whether it is any of the integration patterns or messaging bus patterns. I have not seen that yet. Even though Red Hat has an alternative to that, such as a plugin, it is not as advanced as some of the MCPs that we see around.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is very easy to use. I can download the trial version and just give it a go."
"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."
"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."
"The stability has been good."
"It's very lightweight. There's no need for any specialized tools in order to deploy any service for Red Hat Fuse."
"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."
"The solution has more tooling and options."
"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 features I found most valuable in Red Hat Fuse are the OSB framework, containerization, and the integration of Apache technologies such as the NQ channel, CXF, etc. These are the features that are very prominent in the solution. Red Hat Fuse also offers flexibility, so it's another valuable characteristic of the solution."
 

Cons

"The EPA, from what I understand, lacks a lot of features and it doesn't really know how to interface with legacy systems or how to develop APIs for legacy systems."
"JBoss ESB should focus on startup and performance as EAP is heavier than lightweight Java frameworks, which impacts microservices and cloud environments."
"The monitoring experience should be better."
"There is definitely a bit of a learning curve."
"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."
"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."
"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."
"The stability of the solution is an area with a shortcoming that needs to be improved."
"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."
"The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"We are paying around $24 million across five years."
"My company pays for the license of Red Hat Fuse yearly. At the end of the day, it's a low-cost solution, and its support licenses are still very decently priced versus bigger operators such as IBM, etc. Red Hat Fuse is much more affordable than other solutions. On a scale of one to five, with one being cheap and five being extremely expensive, I'm rating its pricing a one."
"You need to pay for the license. It's not free."
"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."
"Our license for Red Hat Fuse is around $27,000 per year, which is very 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."
"Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with JBoss ESB?
JBoss ESB should focus on startup and performance as EAP is heavier than lightweight Java frameworks, which impacts microservices and cloud environments. Improvements should include faster start ti...
What advice do you have for others considering JBoss ESB?
I am currently using JBoss ESB as an end user. I chose JBoss ESB because it is excellent for open source Java, Java EE, and Jakarta applications. Initially developed by JBoss, it was later acquired...
What is your primary use case for JBoss ESB?
I used JBoss ESB for banking API and banking software. We created our own modules since banking APIs and banking applications require extensive security measures. Since banks handle sensitive finan...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Red Hat Fuse?
When considering pricing for Red Hat Fuse, this is a pretty interesting question. When you consider cost, it is not just the cost of the software, but also the cost of development, cost of usage, a...
What needs improvement with Red Hat Fuse?
There are areas in Red Hat Fuse that have room for improvement. We were recently having a discussion with Red Hat team building agentic AI, which we call AI SDLC. Something that the team is activel...
What is your primary use case for Red Hat Fuse?
Red Hat Fuse serves as our enterprise integration platform. We do use some of the message bus features as well, but it is not the enterprise message bus.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Fuse ESB, FuseSource
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rancore, Sprint, ResMed, Brazil's Ministry of Health, ING Services Polska
Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE
Find out what your peers are saying about JBoss ESB vs. Red Hat Fuse and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,565 professionals have used our research since 2012.