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."I like that it's user-friendly. Compared to other ESBs, I find it easier to use. I like it better than other ESBs. I like the connectors, which make calling the APIs through the routers easier."
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."
"We can use Java expressions anywhere in the flow."
"Mule Expression Language"
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"This tool has exceptional API management and integration connectors in addition to multiple out of the box connectors."
"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."
"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 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 feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."
"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."
"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."
"It's very lightweight. There's no need for any specialized tools in order to deploy any service for Red Hat Fuse."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"In order to meet the new trend of active metadata management, we need intelligent APIs that can retrieve new data designs and trigger actions over new findings without human intervention."
"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."
"It would be great to see implementing security modules as a feature."
"Limitation on external subscribers to listen to the messages on the bus."
"The current version will not be supported for much longer."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"The web tools need to be updated."
"The monitoring experience should be better."
"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."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"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."
"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."
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.
