We performed a comparison between Red Hat Fuse and webMethods Integration Server 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."Because we have been doing Red Hat Fuse projects for three years, and over time we have matured, we can employ similar use cases and make use of accelerators or templates. It gives us an edge when we deliver these services or APIs quickly."
"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."
"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."
"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."
"The stability has been good."
"More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect."
"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."
"This solution's adaptability to our use case has helped us integrate our systems seamlessly."
"The tool supports gRPC."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"The synchronous and asynchronous messaging system the solution provides is very good."
"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"The pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."
"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."
"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high."
"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."
"Support is expensive."
"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."
"Forced migration from MessageBroker to Universal Messaging requires large scale reimplementation for JMS."
"A while ago, they were hacked, and it took them a very long time to open their website again in order to download any service packs or any features. I don't know what they could do differently. I know that they were vulnerable, and there was some downtime, but because they were down, we were unable to download any potential service packs."
"The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."
"This solution could be improved by offering subscription based licensing."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, Mule ESB, TIBCO BusinessWorks and Boomi iPaaS. See our Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods Integration Server 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.
With webMethods Integration Server, you have the power to connect anything faster, thanks to open, standards-based integration. Make custom, packaged and mainframe applications and databases—on-premises and in the cloud—interoperable and assure the fluid flow of data across your automated processes. Mapping and transformation functions are built-in.
pro's; Easy scalability, 300+ connectors, Faster integrations, "Lift & shift" integrations, Mapping and transformation & iPaaS integrations in the cloud
Where Red Hat Fuse, pros; Hybrid deployment, Built-in iPaaS with low-code UI/UX, Container-based integration & Integration everywhere supporting 200 included connectors.
Red Hat Fuse, based on open source communities like Apache Camel and Apache ActiveMQ, is part of an agile integration solution. Its distributed approach allows teams to deploy integrated services where required. The API-centric, container-based architecture decouples services so they can be created, extended, and deployed independently.
Hello Andhika
Please read Dave's reply first and understand that WebMethods offers many features that you will not find in RedHat Fuse.
I would like to add one more architectural point of view.
WebMethods provides a nice business process engine that helps you orchestrate your services. Fuse is not able to provide this kind of service.
If your processes are simple and map information, for example, use Fuse.
If your business processes are complex and require balancing, I recommend an integration tool with a business process engine (BPEL or BPMN). WebMethods, Oracle SOA Suite or OpenESB offer these types of tools.
If you plan to design complex processes, you should not hesitate to choose WebMethods.