We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus 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 message queue feature is very valuable."
"It is a stable solution."
"Content is easily infiltrated in the eclipse infrastructure."
"like the API lead integration, which is more focused, and I also like real-time integration."
"IBM Integration Bus is flexible, easy to use, and easy to configure."
"The product is a user-customized tool so that you can adjust it to your specific needs pretty well with little trouble."
"The product helps efficiently work with different connectors from different back-end systems."
"One of the most valuable features is App Connect Enterprise makes it possible to deploy it in the OpenShift cluster, which is very good. Overall the solution is very flexible."
"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 process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful."
"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"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."
"I would like to be able to build an Integration Bus cluster that is active-active."
"The solution could improve by having built-in implementation and secure monitoring without the need for API Connect."
"There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements."
"The product does not provide API management."
"I would like for them to make the training much easier."
"I can't say that there is any improvement I’m looking for. I’m new and haven’t connected with all features. For all drawbacks that were in the old version, I think they have been solved. The scalability needs improvement."
"I think security should be more simplified."
"The next versions are moving toward container use. It would be a shame to make the product highly complex just to support one pattern of deployment. It is my hope that IBM continues to focus on practical functionality that is simple and cost-effective."
"The pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
"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."
"While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 64 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". 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 Integration Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, webMethods Integration Server, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, Oracle Service Bus and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, webMethods Integration Server and JBoss ESB. See our IBM Integration Bus 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.
