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 solution offers multiple deployment options."
"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."
"I'm not using ESB directly. It is the integration layer, so it's running under the hood. However, the conversion and transformation performance is excellent. Anypoint Enterprise Security is also solid."
"The solution improved my company by modernizing the way we offer services and improving the user experience."
"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications."
"We can use Java expressions anywhere in the flow."
"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."
"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 most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."
"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."
"The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."
"Lacking some connectors that could be included."
"It would be much more beneficial if the solution included AI and business process management."
"From the product perspective, it was sometimes hard to manage the dependencies. When we had to add dependencies on a couple of different packages, it was sometimes confusing. It was hard to update them with Anypoint Studio, as well as with MuleSoft. There were challenges with that. So, that's one of the areas that could be improved."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"MuleSoft isn't as mature as some other integration technologies out there like IBM WebSphere. There's room for growth, and MuleSoft is working toward that."
"The current version will not be supported for much longer."
"It should have some amount of logging."
"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."
"The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."
"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."
"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."
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 45 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.
