OpenESB vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenESB Logo
760 views|312 comparisons
Red Hat Logo
5,468 views|3,154 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenESB and Red Hat Fuse based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Software AG, MuleSoft, IBM and others in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) .
To learn more, read our detailed ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) Report (Updated: November 2022).
655,465 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The process-oriented solution allows you to define choreography and orchestration."

More OpenESB Pros →

"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 support training that comes with the product is amazing.""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 stability has been good.""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.""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.""More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect.""The solution has more tooling and options."

More Red Hat Fuse Pros →

"Cloud deployment is weak and needs to be improved."

More OpenESB Cons →

"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions.""The solution will be discontinued in 2024.""The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation.""There is definitely a bit of a learning curve.""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.""Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible.""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 documentation for Fuse can be improved because, while it is very detailed and extensive, it is not too intuitive for someone that has to deliver some kind of troubleshooting services. In particular, for installation, re-installation, or upgrades, I find that the documentation can be improved."

More Red Hat Fuse Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The cost for the prediction instrument is high because it is charged per instances based on prediction, but the rest of the solution is free."
  • More OpenESB Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "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."
  • "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."
  • "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 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."
  • "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."
  • "Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."
  • "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."
  • "We are paying around $24 million across five years."
  • More Red Hat Fuse Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) solutions are best for your needs.
    655,465 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:One of the most valuable features is being able to implement business processes while keeping track of the design from BPMN to a BPEL Implementation.
    Top Answer:The Community Edition is a full product you can use in production, it does not have limitations like other alternatives. For example, not including HTTPS on Mirth. Using the Enterprise edition is just… more »
    Top Answer:The Studio is a good tool based on NetBeans, but some of its features have to be improved, liked local schemas management. As an additional feature, I would request an inline XSLT editor. It does not… more »
    Top Answer:The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel.
    Top Answer:The primary use case of this solution is to implement our microservices and refactor our monolith products. Not the environment, but libraries that you can build pretty sophisticated workflows
    Top Answer:I give the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is a Red Hat version of the Apache Camel which has been discontinued. The solution will be discontinued in 2024. There are already plans to move… more »
    Average Words per Review
    Average Words per Review
    Also Known As
    Fuse ESB, FuseSource
    Learn More
    Video Not Available

    OpenESB is a Java-based open-source enterprise service bus. It can be used as a platform for both enterprise application integration and service-oriented architecture. OpenESB allows you to integrate legacy systems, external and internal partners and new development in your Business Process.

    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.

    Learn more about OpenESB
    Learn more about Red Hat Fuse
    Sample Customers
    Information Not Available
    Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE
    Top Industries
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Comms Service Provider14%
    Educational Organization13%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Comms Service Provider20%
    Financial Services Firm20%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Computer Software Company10%
    Computer Software Company25%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    Small Business37%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise43%
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise33%
    Large Enterprise56%
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise67%
    Buyer's Guide
    ESB (Enterprise Service Bus)
    November 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about Software AG, MuleSoft, IBM and others in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) . Updated: November 2022.
    655,465 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenESB is ranked 14th in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 1 review while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 5th in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 13 reviews. OpenESB is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenESB writes "Easily define choreography and orchestration with this process-oriented solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Fuse writes "Reliable, good support, saves time and reduces data entry errors". OpenESB is most compared with Mule ESB, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and Oracle Service Bus, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator.

    See our list of best ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) vendors.

    We monitor all ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) 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.