Chief Operating Officer at Integra Micro Software Services, Bangalore
Real User
Top 5
2023-07-03T07:14:51Z
Jul 3, 2023
You need to pay for the license. It's not free. I'm not aware of the exact prices. There are no extra costs in addition to the standard licensing since it is a subscription-based solution.
Principal Solutions Architect at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-01-10T16:13:35Z
Jan 10, 2023
The cost is quite competitive compared to other solutions. We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it. I would rate the pricing as eight out of ten.
The solution doesn't have independent licensing. It's a part of the Red Hat integration suite or integration platform for that name. So this platform includes at least until recently, Red Hat 3scale, Red Hat Fuse, and Red Hat AMQ. Three products. The difference between Red Hat Fuse and Apache Camel is that Apache Camel Open-Source is really not that big, not that much, and the only differentiator which was important for us, is that Red Hat Fuse has enterprise support while Apache Camel doesn't. So in our case, it was important to have enterprise support.
The solution is fairly expensive. It's more suited for enterprise-level companies and not necessarily small or medium-sized ones. You do need to pay a bit more to handle consulting and implementation.
In terms of pricing, Red Hat Fuse is a bit expensive because nowadays, if I'm just comparing it with OpenShift with Kubernetes, so Kubernetes and OpenShift, are similar, and Kubernetes is open source, so Red Hat Fuse is quite expensive in terms of support. I don't know the exact numbers because I don't deal with that area. Commercial teams are different. I just work on the technical side, but I believe the solution is quite expensive. When you have to secure your production and you need to build confidence though, you cannot directly go for OpenShift or an open-source solution. When my team was planning the migration, in terms of development effort, you need to do the same things for OpenShift and Kubernetes, but if you look at it from a long term perspective, you'll see the support, so my team didn't go with open source and we went with Red Hat Fuse instead. Red Hat Fuse provides value for money because it provides good support. If you want to get something, you need to pay for it. My company is also not product-based as it provides service to clients, so clients need to have confidence in the service or the solution from my company as well, for example, if something happens, there's support from Red Hat, so there's two-layer protection.
My company pays for the license of Red Hat Fuse yearly. At the end of the day, it's a low-cost solution, and its support licenses are still very decently priced versus bigger operators such as IBM, etc. Red Hat Fuse is much more affordable than other solutions. On a scale of one to five, with one being cheap and five being extremely expensive, I'm rating its pricing a one.
The most important feature of Fuse is the cost. It is open source and a cheap option for an ESB. So, most of the clients in the Middle East and Asian countries prefer this ESB. Other ESBs, like MuleSoft and IBM API Connect, are pretty expensive. Because it is open source, Red Hat Fuse is the cheapest solution, providing almost every integration capability.
Manager at a energy/utilities company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
2021-11-25T20:09:00Z
Nov 25, 2021
This is an expensive product. It costs a lot and although it's worth the money, the explanations that we need to give to our top executives are highly complicated. This is because the product is highly complicated when it comes to translating the benefits into money. Regarding the licensing model, the problem with this type of product is that you are a hostage of the vendor. In this case, it's Red Hat but it could be any other. When the vendor changes its prices or the licensing model, you don't have options. You may have invested three or four years of development on the platform and if you are not satisfied with the new models, you have to accept them because the exit cost is huge. We are not satisfied with the contracting aspect and we try to do our best but this, in general, happens with most of the software vendors. In particular, where you have either yearly subscriptions or when the product runs on the cloud. As things are, we are increasingly using both kinds of options. So, it's a sad fact but it's what happens. No matter whether we find it to our liking, we have to accept it. Also, every renewal is complicated. In general, there are changes and the process isn't straightforward. Typically, vendors try to extract more money from the customers. I'm speaking about most of the software companies in the sense that you buy a product, use it, and you have to pay for technical support. In reality, you shouldn't have to pay for technical support. If you buy a fridge and it works, you don't buy technical support for the fridge because the fridge doesn't work or it has the risk of not working. If we need technical support, it's because the product lacks quality. Again, I'm not talking only about Red Hat. I'm talking about any software product. The industry works in a perverse way and I can say that because I was on the other side of the counter. I worked for a world-class software company for several years and it happens the same way with all vendors. It's a problem for us as customers and the only way to change this is that agreements should be created differently, but it doesn't seem to be the case. As much as I would like this to happen, it's far away from what we can expect in the next few years. It has gone in the other direction.
Manager of Integration Services at a educational organization with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2021-11-09T21:23:00Z
Nov 9, 2021
Pricing has been something that we have been working with Red Hat on, year over year. We have preferred pricing with the university because we are involved in education and research. Something that we are trying to negotiate with Red Hat is that we need to have pricing that is stable and appropriate for an education and research environment. We want to make sure that we get the discounts that are for state education and research organizations. We've been negotiating that deal with them and this year, we are hoping to get more discounts available for an education/research facility.
Business Solution Analyst at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-11-05T06:31:00Z
Nov 5, 2020
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.
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.
You need to pay for the license. It's not free. I'm not aware of the exact prices. There are no extra costs in addition to the standard licensing since it is a subscription-based solution.
It is a good price. It is not expensive. We have a yearly-based license. There are no additional costs to the standard license.
The cost is quite competitive compared to other solutions. We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it. I would rate the pricing as eight out of ten.
The solution doesn't have independent licensing. It's a part of the Red Hat integration suite or integration platform for that name. So this platform includes at least until recently, Red Hat 3scale, Red Hat Fuse, and Red Hat AMQ. Three products. The difference between Red Hat Fuse and Apache Camel is that Apache Camel Open-Source is really not that big, not that much, and the only differentiator which was important for us, is that Red Hat Fuse has enterprise support while Apache Camel doesn't. So in our case, it was important to have enterprise support.
Our license for Red Hat Fuse is around $27,000 per year, which is very expensive.
The solution is fairly expensive. It's more suited for enterprise-level companies and not necessarily small or medium-sized ones. You do need to pay a bit more to handle consulting and implementation.
We are paying around $24 million across five years.
In terms of pricing, Red Hat Fuse is a bit expensive because nowadays, if I'm just comparing it with OpenShift with Kubernetes, so Kubernetes and OpenShift, are similar, and Kubernetes is open source, so Red Hat Fuse is quite expensive in terms of support. I don't know the exact numbers because I don't deal with that area. Commercial teams are different. I just work on the technical side, but I believe the solution is quite expensive. When you have to secure your production and you need to build confidence though, you cannot directly go for OpenShift or an open-source solution. When my team was planning the migration, in terms of development effort, you need to do the same things for OpenShift and Kubernetes, but if you look at it from a long term perspective, you'll see the support, so my team didn't go with open source and we went with Red Hat Fuse instead. Red Hat Fuse provides value for money because it provides good support. If you want to get something, you need to pay for it. My company is also not product-based as it provides service to clients, so clients need to have confidence in the service or the solution from my company as well, for example, if something happens, there's support from Red Hat, so there's two-layer protection.
Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential.
My company pays for the license of Red Hat Fuse yearly. At the end of the day, it's a low-cost solution, and its support licenses are still very decently priced versus bigger operators such as IBM, etc. Red Hat Fuse is much more affordable than other solutions. On a scale of one to five, with one being cheap and five being extremely expensive, I'm rating its pricing a one.
The most important feature of Fuse is the cost. It is open source and a cheap option for an ESB. So, most of the clients in the Middle East and Asian countries prefer this ESB. Other ESBs, like MuleSoft and IBM API Connect, are pretty expensive. Because it is open source, Red Hat Fuse is the cheapest solution, providing almost every integration capability.
This is an expensive product. It costs a lot and although it's worth the money, the explanations that we need to give to our top executives are highly complicated. This is because the product is highly complicated when it comes to translating the benefits into money. Regarding the licensing model, the problem with this type of product is that you are a hostage of the vendor. In this case, it's Red Hat but it could be any other. When the vendor changes its prices or the licensing model, you don't have options. You may have invested three or four years of development on the platform and if you are not satisfied with the new models, you have to accept them because the exit cost is huge. We are not satisfied with the contracting aspect and we try to do our best but this, in general, happens with most of the software vendors. In particular, where you have either yearly subscriptions or when the product runs on the cloud. As things are, we are increasingly using both kinds of options. So, it's a sad fact but it's what happens. No matter whether we find it to our liking, we have to accept it. Also, every renewal is complicated. In general, there are changes and the process isn't straightforward. Typically, vendors try to extract more money from the customers. I'm speaking about most of the software companies in the sense that you buy a product, use it, and you have to pay for technical support. In reality, you shouldn't have to pay for technical support. If you buy a fridge and it works, you don't buy technical support for the fridge because the fridge doesn't work or it has the risk of not working. If we need technical support, it's because the product lacks quality. Again, I'm not talking only about Red Hat. I'm talking about any software product. The industry works in a perverse way and I can say that because I was on the other side of the counter. I worked for a world-class software company for several years and it happens the same way with all vendors. It's a problem for us as customers and the only way to change this is that agreements should be created differently, but it doesn't seem to be the case. As much as I would like this to happen, it's far away from what we can expect in the next few years. It has gone in the other direction.
Pricing has been something that we have been working with Red Hat on, year over year. We have preferred pricing with the university because we are involved in education and research. Something that we are trying to negotiate with Red Hat is that we need to have pricing that is stable and appropriate for an education and research environment. We want to make sure that we get the discounts that are for state education and research organizations. We've been negotiating that deal with them and this year, we are hoping to get more discounts available for an education/research facility.
In terms of price, it depends on the package the client signs.
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.
This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge.
We have a yearly subscription. You don't need a license. It's not an overly expensive solution.
We found other solutions were more costly.