JBoss ESB vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

"The solution is very easy to use. I can download the trial version and just give it a go."

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

"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."

"The solution has more tooling and options."

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

"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 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 most valuable feature is the software development environment."

"The benefits of Red Hat Fuse are balanced by the fact that they use it because the integration is very simple."

"JBoss ESB should focus on startup and performance as EAP is heavier than lightweight Java frameworks, which impacts microservices and cloud environments."

"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."

"The pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."

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

"While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high."

"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."

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

"I don't know the product last versions. I know they are migrating a microservices concepts. We still didn't get there... but we are in the process."

"The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature."

"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."

"Red Hat Fuse saved us money. It is a lot easier to license for cloud deployments."

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

"In terms of pricing, Red Hat Fuse is a bit expensive because nowadays, if I'm just comparing it with OpenShift with Kubernetes, so Kubernetes and OpenShift, are similar, and Kubernetes is open source, so Red Hat Fuse is quite expensive in terms of support, but Red Hat Fuse provides value for money because it provides good support. If you want to get something, you need to pay for it."

"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."

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

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

"Pricing has been something that we have been working with Red Hat on, year over year. We have preferred pricing with the university because we are involved in education and research."

"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."