We performed a comparison between Mule ESB and Red Hat Fuse based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The connectors help to connect with a variety of applications."
"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."
"Mule ESB has a user-friendly design, and everything is in one place. The API and architecture are popular right now. Also, MuleSoft has a large and supportive online community."
"The solution has a good graphical interface."
"Mule Expression Language"
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"It is easily deployable and manageable. It has microservices-based architecture, which means that you can deploy the solution based on your needs, and you can manage the solution very easily."
"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."
"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."
"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 the software development environment."
"The solution has more tooling and options."
"The stability has been good."
"Red Hat Fuse's best features are that it's very easy to set up and maintain."
"The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"It would be beneficial if users could navigate the UI easily without extensive training or learning curves."
"It needs more samples. Also, the dependency on Maven should be removed."
"The Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight."
"It's not easy to troubleshoot and we still can't make it work."
"One area that could be improved is the way that policies are propagated when APIs are moved from one environment to another. It's an issue, but when you develop and test the rest APIs in a lower environment and need to move them, there's a propagation process. This process moves certain aspects of the APIs, like the basic features. But when we move them, the policies don't always move with them. The policies should be able to move so we don't have to redo them manually. There are some APIs we use, but it's a bit tedious."
"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."
"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."
"The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature."
"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."
"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."
"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."
"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 web tools need to be updated."
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. Mule ESB is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Fuse writes "Configurable, doesn't require much coding, and has an automatic load balancing feature, but its development features need improvement". Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, JBoss ESB and webMethods Integration Server. See our Mule ESB vs. Red Hat Fuse report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 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.
