Red Hat Fuse Other Solutions Considered
I evaluated MuleSoft and Information Builder.
View full review »NP
reviewer1712775
Manager of Integration Services at a educational organization with 10,001+ employees
As Oracle was sunsetting Java CAPS, they were actively trying to sell their own middleware, which was not a great product, from my perspective. We didn't go to that product. We decided to move to Red Hat because it was something we envisioned that we would be happy with.
There were other products that we evaluated. For example, Orion has the Rhapsody Integration Engine, which we looked at but didn't want to move to a JavaScript-based product. That would have locked us into that vendor.
We could always go to another e-integration platform that's not Red Hat Fuse because this is an open-source technology. If you lock into a vendor and the price increases for their support, then you are stuck paying the higher prices. Therefore, we needed the open-source technology in-house.
Another one we looked at was the Ensemble Integration Engine from InterSystems. There were a total of four or five that we evaluated and ultimately, we decided that Red Hat Fuse fit the bill.
As we transitioned to Red Hat Fuse, we wanted to keep Java as our expertise. We had developers who knew Java, programmed in Java, and wanted to continue with Java. This is one of the reasons that we chose to switch to Fuse, and we are very happy with it now.
View full review »This solution is similar to other technologies with one main difference. IBM Integration Bus, IBM API Connect, or MuleSoft give us the built-in capabilities and connectors to do different architectures as well as asynchronous or synchronous calls. In the case of Red Hat, we always have to handle the asynchronous calls and stuff inside the Java code and do some custom development, which is a bit of a grind for the developer. However, everything that we can do in the latest, most expensive tool can also be done in Red Hat.
If we take good, expensive ESBs, like IBM Integration Bus or MuleSoft, they will have built-in connectors. Therefore, their time to the market and delivery time will be minimal. In the case of Red Hat and open-source stuff, the delivery time is a give-and-take scenario and the development time is more.
MuleSoft is the best ESB tool in the market. The delivery time for MuleSoft API into the market is minimal. With a medium-complexity-type API, it will take you a week or five days for its development and deployment on production. The same API in Red Hat Fuse might take two or three weeks for a medium-complexity API or service. However, if a company implementing Red Hat Fuse has already developed some accelerators or templates, and they have professional developers as well, then the delay can be minimized.
MuleSoft pricing is huge. If the business has critical integrations and their budget is low, we will propose Red Hat Fuse to them. Everything that can be done in MuleSoft can be done in Red Hat Fuse, but the delivery time and learning curve are a bit of a problem. Whereas, MuleSoft is the best solution in every aspect, except cost. Overall, my rating for MuleSoft is higher than Red Hat Fuse.
Mostly, the cost factor is the deciding factor when businesses consider using Red Hat Fuse. There is a huge cost difference in subscriptions between Red Hat and MuleSoft. Red Hat Fuse is significantly cheaper than MuleSoft.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
Red Hat Fuse
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about Red Hat Fuse. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
767,496 professionals have used our research since 2012.
NN
reviewer1728324
Manager at a energy/utilities company with 501-1,000 employees
We evaluated two or three other solutions.
In general, we make decisions based on three aspects. We consider the price, performance of the solution in the sense of suitability for our needs, quality of the product, et cetera, and third but not less important, comments from other users. In some cases, we consider the availability of local expertise by partners.
In the case of Red Hat, there are a lot of Red Hat partners overall but with deep knowledge of Fuse, there are very few in our region. That was something that caused us some doubt. The only factor that made us hesitate was this relative lack of availability of solution partners.
When you have very few suppliers, the price tends to be high, and maybe the response time that you need is not there because there might be, for example, a handful of technical resources of a certain vendor in your region, and they are booked for the next six months. We have encountered such difficulties, but the competition that we evaluated had also the same situation in that regard. Products such as Fuse and its competition are not widespread. You might find one Fuse implementation every hundred companies, and you can find a Red Hat Linux implementation in one of every two companies. It's obvious that you will find more Linux knowledge around than Fuse. This is how life works and you have to get used to that.
This relative shortcoming was applicable to all of the vendors because there are not too many Fuse or Fuse-like implementations overall, at least at the moment when we started, between four and five years ago.
WJ
Woo Joo Lee
Systems Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
We looked into MuleSoft a little bit. After doing some Googling and comparisons, the main standouts were MuleSoft and Red Hat Fuse.
One of the big factors in our decision to go with Fuse was the licensing cost. It was cheaper to go with Fuse. And from a developer and system architecture point of view, I liked Red Hat better because it is open source. There were a lot of examples online, and there was a wider ecosystem. I could pick and choose among all of the possibilities and the different projects that Red Hat was managing. I liked that part of it. An aspect of that had to do with containerization. I could see that, in the future, it would be really easy to put things together and evolve the solution later, if necessary.
View full review »We did look into OpenShift before choosing this solution. OpenShift required us to integrate with other solutions.
View full review »JA
JuanArtola
Business Solution Analyst at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
We evaluated IBM Integration Bus, Fuse, and MuleSoft. At that point, MuleSoft was just beginning locally and we didn't get so much references from partners. And Integration Bus was expensive.
Criteria for us was that the vendor needs to be stable and the product should be quite widely used for us to consider them. We truly value stabilty more than whether it is the best solution. We need stability and reliability. That doesn't always mean the most developed or the most high tech solutions.
The shortlist for us was, Mulesoft and RedHat Fuse. In the end, it was between those two.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
Red Hat Fuse
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about Red Hat Fuse. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
767,496 professionals have used our research since 2012.