We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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."It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The solution has good integration."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"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."
"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 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."
"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."
"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"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."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"The solution will be discontinued in 2024."
"The web tools need to be updated."
"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 pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."
"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."
"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"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."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". 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". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Mule ESB, IBM DataPower Gateway and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.
