We performed a comparison between JBoss ESB and Red Hat Fuse based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, MuleSoft, Software AG and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)."The solution is very easy to use. I can download the trial version and just give it a go."
"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."
"The stability has been good."
"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 initial setup process is quite straightforward."
"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 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 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 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."
"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."
"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 is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."
"There is definitely a bit of a learning curve."
"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."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
"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."
Earn 20 points
JBoss ESB is ranked 14th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. JBoss ESB is rated 7.0, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of JBoss ESB writes "Easy to use with flexible pricing, but needs more flexibility surrounding integrations". 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". JBoss ESB is most compared with Mule ESB, Oracle Service Bus, IBM Integration Bus and webMethods Integration Server, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and webMethods Integration Server.
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.
