JBoss ESB vs Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods.io comparison

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

"Because we have been doing Red Hat Fuse projects for three years, and over time we have matured, we can employ similar use cases and make use of accelerators or templates. It gives us an edge when we deliver these services or APIs quickly."

"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."

"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."

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

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

"When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."

"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."

"The tool is very powerful and user-friendly."

"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."

"I like the tool's scalability."

"Ease of implementation and flexibility to hold the business logic are the most valuable features."

"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"

"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."

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

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

"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."

"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."

"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."

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

"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."

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

"The product must add more compatible connectors."

"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."

"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."

"We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics."

"This product has too many gaps. You find them after update installations. This should be covered by automatic testing."

"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."

"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."

"The improvement needed is related to the model's position. As of now, it seems to be more of a conceptual idea rather than a widely implemented solution. For how long"

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

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

"We found other solutions were more costly."

"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 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."

"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."

"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."

"This is an expensive product. It costs a lot and although it's worth the money, the explanations that we need to give to our top executives are highly complicated."

"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."

"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."

"Sometimes we don't have a very clear idea what the licensing will entail at first, because it can be very customizable. On one hand, this can be a good thing, because it can be tailored to a specific customer's needs. But on the other hand it can also be an issue when some customer asks, "What's the cost?" and we can't yet give them an accurate answer."

"The product is expensive."

"Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers."

"I do see a lack of capabilities inside of the monetization area for them. They have a cloud infrastructure that is pay per use type of a thing. If you already use 1,000 transactions per se, then you can be charged and billed. I see room for improvement there for their side on that particular capability of the monetization."

"The pricing and licensing costs for webMethods are very high, which is the only reason that we might switch to another product."

"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."