Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods.io comparison

Red Hat and IBM are both solutions in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category. Red Hat is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.0, while IBM is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.9. Red Hat holds a 7.1% mindshare in E, compared to IBM’s 11.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Red Hat users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 94% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Red Hat Fuse

Read 24 Red Hat Fuse reviews

1,568 Views
1,537 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

webMethods.io

Read 93 webMethods.io reviews

9,290 Views
1,672 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

Red Hat Fuse

webMethods.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

Red Hat Fuse and webMethods.io compete in the enterprise integration space, offering solutions for developers and businesses. Based on the data comparisons, webMethods.io seems to have an edge with its ease of use and comprehensive integration capabilities.

Features: Red Hat Fuse stands out with its integration capabilities offered through Apache Camel, providing a wide array of connectors. It is developer-friendly and flexible, praised for its scalability and reliability in complex integrations. webMethods.io is recognized for its ease of use and offers a robust set of out-of-box features with extensive connectors, providing a unified platform for diverse integration tasks and strong API management features.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Fuse faces challenges with documentation and user community support. The setup and configuration can be complex, and improvements are needed in the user interface and monitoring tools. Pricing is also a concern. webMethods.io is critiqued for its high cost and complexity in pricing models. Users suggest improved integration with legacy systems, enhanced documentation, and better version control.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both Red Hat Fuse and webMethods.io offer hybrid and cloud deployment options. Red Hat Fuse is developer-friendly but could benefit from better support and comprehensive documentation. webMethods.io provides robust customer support with comprehensive service options, although its deployment can be complex and expensive.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Fuse is perceived as more cost-effective, especially for open-source users, but initial costs are high. Users report positive ROI over time. webMethods.io is often expensive, better suited for large-scale enterprises. Despite the high cost, it delivers strong outcomes and stable integrations, offering value against the investment.

To learn more, read our detailed Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,676 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:

Categories and Ranking

Red Hat Fuse

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

5th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

webMethods.io

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business-to-Business Middleware (2nd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (11th), Cloud Data Integration (8th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (7th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Red Hat Fuse is 7.1%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 11.1%, up from 10.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
webMethods.io	11.1%
Red Hat Fuse	7.1%
Other	81.8%

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Featured Reviews

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

"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."

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

"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."

"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."

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

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

"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."

More Red Hat Fuse pros

"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."

"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."

"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."

"Clients choose webMethods.io API for its intuitive interface, promoting seamless interaction and quick communication between systems."

"I like the tool's scalability."

"We can arrange data caching and look at the solid state. Also, the API gateway is a very good component that can handle relevant cachings and integrations, as well as and also load permitting."

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

"EDI is robust and integration with SAP is good."

More webMethods.io pros

Cons

"For improvement, they can consider the way we collaborate with other applications...Right now, in Red Hat Fuse, everything is not available under one umbrella."

"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."

"The monitoring experience should be better."

"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."

"The web tools need to be updated."

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

"The solution will be discontinued in 2024."

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

More Red Hat Fuse cons

"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."

"I would like to have a dashboard where I can see all of the communication between components and the configuration."

"The stability of the various modules of the product suite have been a bit of a concern lately. Though their support team is always easy to reach out to, I would prefer it not come to that."

"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."

"It is difficult to maintain."

"The solution should include REST API calls."

"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."

"Support is expensive."

More webMethods.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

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

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

More Red Hat Fuse pricing and cost advice

"It is worth the cost."

"The solution’s pricing is too high."

"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."

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

"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."

"Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client."

"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 a little bit high, especially regarding their support."

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

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Answers from the Community

Andhika Sotax

Works at Nuvision Consulting

Jan 26, 2022

What are pros and cons of Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods Integration Server?

See 2 answers

Dave Koffij

Information Technology Architect, Cloud and Security at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Jul 29, 2021

With webMethods Integration Server, you have the power to connect anything faster, thanks to open, standards-based integration. Make custom, packaged and mainframe applications and databases—on-premises and in the cloud—interoperable and assure the fluid flow of data across your automated processes. Mapping and transformation functions are built-in. pro's; Easy scalability, 300+ connectors, Faster integrations, "Lift & shift" integrations, Mapping and transformation & iPaaS integrations in the cloud Where Red Hat Fuse, pros; Hybrid deployment, Built-in iPaaS with low-code UI/UX, Container-based integration & Integration everywhere supporting 200 included connectors. Red Hat Fuse, based on open source communities like Apache Camel and Apache ActiveMQ, is part of an agile integration solution. Its distributed approach allows teams to deploy integrated services where required. The API-centric, container-based architecture decouples services so they can be created, extended, and deployed independently.

Read full answer

PaulPerez

Integration Architect at Pymma consulting

Jan 26, 2022

Hello Andhika Please read Dave's reply first and understand that WebMethods offers many features that you will not find in RedHat Fuse. I would like to add one more architectural point of view. WebMethods provides a nice business process engine that helps you orchestrate your services. Fuse is not able to provide this kind of service. If your processes are simple and map information, for example, use Fuse. If your business processes are complex and require balancing, I recommend an integration tool with a business process engine (BPEL or BPMN). WebMethods, Oracle SOA Suite or OpenESB offer these types of tools. If you plan to design complex processes, you should not hesitate to choose WebMethods.

Read full answer

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	12

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	23
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	63

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Red Hat Fuse?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Red Hat Fuse?

Our company used Red Hat Fuse to integrate layers of numerous applications. The solution has also been used in our organization for orchestration purposes of multiple microservices over the years. ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Fuse?

I would rate Red Hat Fuse as eight out of ten. When the solution was being used in our organization, the JBoss or Red Hat support was great. The solution was highly stable, robust, and scalable, an...

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 digital transformation.

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 Red Hat Fuse

Compared 30% of the time

Mule ESB vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 18% of the time

JBoss ESB vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 17% of the time

Oracle Service Bus vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 15% of the time

More Red Hat Fuse Competitors

IBM App Connect vs webMethods.io

Compared 9% of the time

IBM Integration Bus vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

Apigee vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

Boomi iPaaS vs webMethods.io

Compared 5% of the time

More webMethods.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse

August 2025

Download Red Hat Fuse product report

Buyer's Guide

webMethods.io

August 2025

Download webMethods.io product report

Also Known As

Fuse ESB, FuseSource

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

Overview

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

Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE

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

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io

September 2025

Free Report: Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io

Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io report.

See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors and best Cloud Data Integration vendors.

We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.