JBoss ESB vs Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods.io comparison

JBoss ESB and Red Hat Fuse are both solutions in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category. JBoss ESB is ranked #12, while Red Hat Fuse is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.0. JBoss ESB holds a 3.2% mindshare in E, compared to Red Hat Fuse’s 7.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of JBoss ESB users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Red Hat Fuse users who would recommend it.

JBoss ESB

Read 1 JBoss ESB review

396 Views
388 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Red Hat Fuse

Read 24 Red Hat Fuse reviews

1,801 Views
1,765 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

webMethods.io

Read 93 webMethods.io reviews

9,897 Views
1,781 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

JBoss ESB

Red Hat Fuse

webMethods.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between JBoss ESB, Red Hat Fuse, and webMethods.io based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Salesforce, Oracle and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB).

To learn more, read our detailed Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,825 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of JBoss ESB is 3.2%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Fuse is 7.2%, down from 7.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.9%, up from 9.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Featured Reviews

Rohit SAHNI

Financial Technology Solution Consultant at Intellect Design Arena Ltd

Easy to use with flexible pricing, but needs more flexibility surrounding integrations

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. I'm not sure if it is possible, however, we would like to see features that allow for legacy systems so that they can continue to be developed and managed well. The solution should provide some more general studio features. We should be able to manipulate the platform in order to do some integrations on our own. There needs to be a bit more flexibility.

Read full review

Kaushal Kedia

Technical Architect at Accenture

Offers a single console for all applications and supports Camel routing

Containerization is one key area where the product can improve, but it probably has already improved in JBOS integration. On a few occasions, our company's production team faced an issue with Red Hat Fuse; the screen displayed that the containers had gone down while, in reality, they were running in the background. The user interface and the back-end code were not in sync in the aforementioned situation, which our organization frequently faced while using Red Hat Fuse. But at our company, we were using an older version of Red Hat Fuse in which we faced the issues. From the JBOS end, the product was very frequently changed from Red Hat, and it was difficult for our clients to keep investing money in every upgrade. Six or seven years back, Red Hat Fuse was one of the best solutions.

Read full review

MohanPrasad

Senior Consultant at Brillio

Smooth integration and enhanced deployment with high licensing cost

webMethods.io was used to integrate APIs through the webMethods.io platform, trigger database events, and connect backend APIs through a Java backend. It was used extensively for integration purposes in my organization Integration became smoother, troubleshooting was easier, and deployment and…

Read full review

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."

"The stability has been good."

"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."

"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."

"The solution has more tooling and options."

"The initial setup process is quite straightforward."

"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."

"The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."

More Red Hat Fuse pros

"What I like the most about the solution is that it comes with ready-made tools like handling security tokens and OAuth."

"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."

"The most valuable feature of webMethods Integration Server is all the capabilities it provides. We leverage most of the features, that they have offered to us. Our vendor has made some additional features on top of the webMethods Integration Server and we use all the features together."

"A product with good API and EDI components."

"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."

"Our use case is for integration factory for SAP. It is mostly for SAP integration."

"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."

"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."

More webMethods.io pros

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."

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

"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."

"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."

"The stability of the solution is an area with a shortcoming that needs to be improved."

"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."

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

"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."

More Red Hat Fuse cons

"It is quite expensive."

"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."

"We'd like for them to open up to a more cloud-based solution that could offer more flexibility and maybe a better rules engine or more integration with rules engines."

"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."

"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."

"webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors."

"The products, at the moment, are new and there should perhaps be support for the older version of the protocols."

"The market webMethods Integration Server falls under is a very crowded market, so for the product to stand out, Software AG would need to get traction in the open source community by releasing a new version or a base version and open source it, so people can create new custom components and add it to the portfolio."

More webMethods.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"We found other solutions were more costly."

"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 use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it."

"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."

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

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

"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."

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

More Red Hat Fuse pricing and cost advice

"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."

"This is an expensive product and we may replace it with something more reasonably priced."

"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."

"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."

"Pricing is the number-one downfall. It's too expensive. They could make more money by dropping the price in half and getting more customers. It's the best product there is, but it's too expensive."

"Based on our team discussions and feedback, it is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."

"It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one."

"webMethods Integration Server is expensive, and there's no fixed price on it because it has a point pricing model. You can negotiate, which makes it interesting."

More webMethods.io pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

24%

Comms Service Provider

Government

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Red Hat Fuse?

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

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Red Hat Fuse?

You need to pay for the license. It's not free. I'm not aware of the exact prices. There are no extra costs in additi...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat Fuse?

Containerization is one key area where the product can improve, but it probably has already improved in JBOS integrat...

See all answers

What do you like most about Built.io Flow?

The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage d...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?

webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?

webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM Integration Bus vs JBoss ESB

Compared 24% of the time

Mule ESB vs JBoss ESB

Compared 23% of the time

More JBoss ESB Competitors

IBM Integration Bus vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 27% of the time

Mule ESB vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 20% of the time

Oracle Service Bus vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 14% of the time

WSO2 Enterprise Integrator vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 11% of the time

More Red Hat Fuse Competitors

IBM App Connect vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

Apigee vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Integration Bus vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

Boomi iPaaS vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

More webMethods.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

July 2025

Download JBoss ESB product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse

June 2025

Download Red Hat Fuse product report

Buyer's Guide

webMethods.io

June 2025

Download webMethods.io product report

Also Known As

No data available

Fuse ESB, FuseSource

Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API

Overview

JBossESB is the next generation of EAI - better and without the vendor-lockin characteristics of old. As such, many of the capabilities mirror those of existing EAI offerings: Business Process Monitoring, Integrated Development Environment, Human Workflow User Interface, Business Process Management, Connectors, Transaction Manager, Security, Application Container, Messaging Service, Metadata Repository, Naming and Directory Service, Distributed Computing Architecture. Plus JBossESB is part of an SOI (Service Oriented Infrastructure). However, SOA is not simply a technology or a product: it's a style of design, with many aspects (such as architectural, methodological and organisational) unrelated to the actual technology.

Red Hat

Red Hat JBoss Fuse is a lightweight, flexible integration platform that enables rapid integration across the extended enterprise - on-premise or in the cloud. JBoss Fuse includes modular integration capabilities, an enterprise service bus (ESB), to unlock information.

Red Hat

webMethods.io Integration is a powerful integration platform as a service (iPaaS) that provides a combination of capabilities offered by ESBs, data integration systems, API management tools, and B2B gateways.

IBM

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

Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings

Buyer's Guide

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

July 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Salesforce, Oracle and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.