We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Schedule a 30-minute demo or reference call with a real user from the PeerSpot community. Available only to members that are in a buying process for this product and have contributed a review that's then published.

Red Hat Fuse OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Red Hat Fuse is #7 ranked solution in top Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) tools. IT Central Station users give Red Hat Fuse an average rating of 8 out of 10. Red Hat Fuse is most commonly compared to Mule ESB:Red Hat Fuse vs Mule ESB. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 36% of all views.
What is Red Hat Fuse?

Red Hat JBoss Fuse is a lightweight, flexible integration platform that enables rapid integration across the extended enterprise - on-premise or in the cloud. JBoss Fuse includes modular integration capabilities, an enterprise service bus (ESB), to unlock information.

Red Hat Fuse was previously known as Fuse ESB, FuseSource.

Buyer's Guide

Download the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

Red Hat Fuse Customers

Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE

Red Hat Fuse Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Red Hat Fuse pricing:
  • "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."
  • "This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."

Red Hat Fuse Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Woo Joo Lee
Systems Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Containerization adds to the flexibility and power of the solution

Pros and Cons

  • "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 might help if, in the documentation, there were a comments section or some kind of community input. I might read a page of documentation and not fully understand everything, or it might not quite answer the question I had. If there were a section associated with it where people could discuss the same topic, that might be helpful because somebody else might have already asked the question that I had."

What is our primary use case?

Our company provides IT services. Some of the projects that we do are integration projects and we use Fuse to help customers solve their integration problems.

In our latest project, we integrated one legacy system with a new system they were implementing. We used Red Hat Fuse and AMQ to solve the integration situation. One system did not have a modern API, and the only thing exposed as integration points were database tables. The other system had more options, but to connect it to the database interface, we decided to implement a Fuse application to translate things and make it reusable and modular. 

It's deployed on-prem, as a stand-alone, on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, with an AMQ master sight configuration and two clustered Fuse nodes.

How has it helped my organization?

Because it was relatively easy to get set up, it saved us a lot of time in building the solution. 

In terms of functionality, it's influencing a key piece of integration, one that actually allows our company to operate. It makes possible a core part of our business.

What is most valuable?

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.

Because Apache Camel is widely used, it was quite easy to find examples for use cases that are similar to ours. We were able to get it set up and do a proof of concept quite easily, without relying on the external consultants too much. The fact that we could download it with the developer license and set up a test environment and try things out, before we committed to purchasing an actual subscription, was also very helpful in getting us set up quickly. 

What needs improvement?

Some of the official Red Hat documentation could be improved a little bit. It was a little difficult to find exactly what I was looking for. I was eventually able to find it. It's there, but it was hard to find. 

It might help if, in the documentation, there were a comments section or some kind of community input. I might read a page of documentation and not fully understand everything, or it might not quite answer the question I had. If there were a section associated with it where people could discuss the same topic, that might be helpful because somebody else might have already asked the question that I had.

We deployed Fuse on JBoss EAP and the user interface could be improved with some type of dashboarding. That would be useful because, when we got it set up, there wasn't anything that we could readily just turn on to monitor its performance. It turned out there actually was, and I eventually found it, but it wasn't quite handy. It would have been really great if, as part of deploying Fuse on JBoss EAP, we could easily get to measuring performance and have the ability to monitor things, without having to dive into configuration or to deploy other stuff.

For how long have I used the solution?

I used it from 2018 through to April of this year. I will likely start using it again in the next month or two, as part of my consulting work for the IT services company I work for. We use Red Hat Fuse with Red Hat AMQ.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's been very stable. Since we put it into production, there really haven't been any issues. It has been reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's very scalable. We haven't had to utilize its full potential. While I was using it, I found out about the possibility of containerizing it. That seems great. In the future, I think I'll continue to use it in other projects. For our use case, we didn't need to employ all of that, partly because the organization that we were doing the project for wasn't ready, and their infrastructure wasn't ready. But I'd rate it as very scalable.

How are customer service and support?

I believe we used Red Hat technical support once because we were using the partner. My impression at the time was that it was a good experience, but the response was not as fast as I would've liked.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

This is the first integration solution we have used.

How was the initial setup?

Once I understood how to do it, it was straightforward. You just download EAP, start it up, download Fuse, build an application, and deploy onto it. Those things are quite easy to do, but there were some fundamental knowledge gaps that I had to close, before I could do that. When I first got started using Red Hat Fuse, I hadn't been really deep into the open source Java ecosystem. I was familiar with bits of it, but there were some things it seems they assume you know, things that help you set it up easily. 

It's hard to measure exactly what our deployment time was because we've made a bunch of improvements along the way. But from the time we decided to use it until we got a proof of concept set up—a minimum viable product—was about a month.

It would have been helpful if there were a prerequisite list, along the lines of: in order to use this, you need to know these concepts. Once I got the prerequisites, it took me a month to download it, find some examples, do a little tweaking, build a simple application, put it up, and do a basic test.

What about the implementation team?

We did engage a Red Hat partner a little bit, Section6, to refine the design by designing some of the finer parts of it.

Our experience with Section6 was mostly good. Some of them were ex-Red Hat employees. They were professional. They knew what they were talking about, although there were varying levels of experience within their team. Some of them were really great and some of them were not as great. But overall, the experience was good.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to somebody looking into this product would be: Be prepared to do a lot of reading. But the tool is quite flexible and quite powerful.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
CF
VP at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Default settings are enough to handle most requirements, but needs more flexibility

Pros and Cons

  • "The installation is quite okay. We don't really change much in the configuration. Most of the time, most of the settings remain with the default and we are able to handle our needs using the default setting."
  • "Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."

What is our primary use case?

We have our web server, our app server, and our database installed using the Red Hat OS.

What is most valuable?

When comparing the database in Red Hat to that in Windows, we do prefer Red Hat based on its performance.

The installation is quite okay. We don't really change much in the configuration. Most of the time, most of the settings remain with the default and we are able to handle our needs using the default setting. But for some clients, maybe due to their connection, or due to their OEM, we need to adjust the settings a bit. 

So far there is not much concern.

What needs improvement?

Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible.


For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Red Hat Fuse for more than 13 years. Most of our products are implemented using the Red Hat. So it's been many years already.

We have different versions because our clients who implemented earlier may still have the old version. With new implementations, we'll normally recommend for the newer version. For example, we have a client who implemented version seven. Some clients are still using version four point something because they haven't done upgrades for many years. So it depends on when they implemented and also whether they do upgrades.

Additionally, we have clients that are on cloud and on premises, as well.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

For us, Red Hat Fuse is stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I think we have more than 30 people working with Red Hat Fuse because we have more than 30 clients and most of our clients have Red Hat.

We definitely plan to increase usage because all our new clients and new prospects will continue to increase.

How are customer service and technical support?

I am in touch with Red Hat support once a while. We might raise support because of the patches. Whenever we apply the patches, if we encounter any issue, we will raise the support to the Red Hat. But most of the time, after we implement, it's quite stable. So there is nothing much to raise.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We currently use other solutions, like Windows or other OSs. But the most common is Red Hat. I would say 80% or more are using the Red Hat OS.

Some of our clients already have existing servers with the Windows platform, so they don't want to change. So, we have to implement the existing platform in Windows.

How was the initial setup?

The installation is okay. Because we have a team who does the OS installation for the client, we don't have much concern. Because it is handled by a separate team I don't have the details with me. We don't have much concern about the installation.

What about the implementation team?

We only need one person to do the deployment who is from the DB team, so they know about the database and the server. 1% can handle the whole thing.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

In terms of price, it depends on the package the client signs.

What other advice do I have?

Actually, we are doing R&D on Red Hat Fuse. We are looking to move some of our application framework to use Red Hat Fuse. But we haven't decide yet. It's still in the decision stage.

On a scale of one to ten, based on our earlier Proof of Concept, I would give Red Hat Fuse a seven. Because the Proof of Concept was done two years ago we are now going to resume again and we are now at the decision making point. We still find that we need some customization in order to meet our clients' needs. Even if it is more compliant, there are still some customizations required in order to meet our clients' requirements.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, MuleSoft, IBM and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Updated: November 2021.
555,139 professionals have used our research since 2012.
JuanArtola
Business Solution Analyst at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Red Hat Fuse could be considered a simple, robust and scalable ESB solution.

Pros and Cons

  • "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."
  • "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 is our primary use case?

We used RH Fuse solution for some integration between the new ERP system to our local legacies systems.

We take messages from MQ and then call a local API or leave a transformed file for a legacy system, and viceversa.

That has allowed us to reduce legacy system adaptation efforts.

How has it helped my organization?

The implementation of a ESB solution bring the opportunity of review the entire local integration strategy and start to rethink the company as a set of services.

What is most valuable?

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. So any application, especially new developments, get master data from a centralized repository (through Fuse), instead of having the master data replicated.

What needs improvement?


For how long have I used the solution?

We decided to implement a ESB solution three yeas ago (2017) facing a big ERP migration project in order to easily extent the integration strategy bring by the IT Central Team (the core integration model is base on a asyncronous strategy over a IBM Websphere MQ Series solution).

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is good. The response is great. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's easy to scale in RH JBoss EAP solution. 

How are customer service and technical support?

Any time we contact Red Hat for help we had got a satisficing response.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously had used PowerCenter, but the purpose is completely different. We are still using it for Data Integration (big volume of data). And we still have some old transactional integrations over PWC that we should to migrate them to Fuse.

How was the initial setup?

The installation and configuration process is simple.

What about the implementation team?

We have a mixed team. We have look external help for the developing and supporting tasks.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It has the same pros/cons that all OpenSource solutions. But here you have a big company behind. You could choose pay the subscription and get al the help you need. RH Knowledge base page has helped us many times.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

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.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend Fuse. I don't think any other ESB tool makes big difference from Fuse. Many of this tools have the same problem: to publish and secure an internal service. Many tools bring other solutions to they ecosystems in order to extend to an API Gateway/Management functionality. You could reach the same adding others Red Hat tools.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
GR
Senior IT Architect at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Performs well, offers a good software development environment, and stability is a strong point

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is the software development environment."
  • "Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."

What is our primary use case?

We are a solution provider and Red Hat Fuse is one of the products that we have experience working with. 

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the software development environment.


What needs improvement?

Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using Red Hat Fuse for two or three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Red Hat Fuse is very stable and this is one of the strong points of this product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This product can scale both horizontally and vertically.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have not been in contact with technical support. The tool is not very hard to use.

How was the initial setup?

I find the initial setup to be easy. However, some people look for other tools because they don't like the command-line interface. The typical deployment takes about two weeks. This includes getting the machines.

From the point where we have the machines and understand the requirements, it takes no longer than two hours to set up and deploy.

What about the implementation team?

Our in-house team is responsible for deployment and maintenance.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend it to people because it is very good for starting with an ESB project. Depending on the size of the installation, it may not be necessary to use another tool. I would suggest starting with the documentation to see if it meets the requirements. I think that doing a proof of concept is a good idea because you will get a real perception of what the tool offers.

Another thing that I suggest is to try and find the connector that you want to use and make sure that it is supported by Red Hat or another company.

Overall, I think that this is a good tool. It is very versatile, although compared to other tools on the market, it doesn't have the appearance, or look and feel, of one that is very professional. You can do everything on the command line, but some people feel that it just doesn't look good. For me, agility and performance are more important than it being eye-catching.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner