Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Integration Bus vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Integration Bus
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
68
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat Fuse
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of IBM Integration Bus is 24.3%, up from 22.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Fuse is 8.8%, down from 10.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

Ashraf Siddiqui - PeerSpot reviewer
Helpful for complex integrations because it has tools and functionality to integrate with other systems
Everything needs to be improved. As far as integration and the cloud are concerned, things are moving to the cloud side. When you use Kubernetes and similar technologies, IBM Integration Bus doesn't greatly facilitate these environments. Maybe I don't know enough about that, but I feel that when it comes to the DevOps environment, the tool needs to be deployed on production in a way that's just like pods. Cloud integration needs to be more facilitated with the DevOps environment. This IBM technology needs to adapt because in the recent world, in the real world, we see that everything is just a cloud pod. Whenever you need to scale anything, you just put some cloud and pod and improve it, make any server and deploy it. But in IBM Integration Bus, there is a problem because we can't do this as easily. In short, IBM needs to more emphasize or more integrate with the cloud environments as well, similar to DevOps. There are limitations in IBM Integration Bus when it comes to DevOps.
Kaushal  Kedia - PeerSpot reviewer
Configurable, doesn't require much coding, and has an automatic load balancing feature, but its development features need improvement
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. There are good and bad points in Red Hat Fuse, but mostly the solution has good points. There's also another similar product in the market: IB Information Builder which is a product that has recently been taken over by TIBCO, and TIBCO has a similar integration product. It's similar to MuleSoft because both TIBCO and MuleSoft have user interfaces on the development side, so if I have to define a route where one particular flow should follow a particular way, for example, service should be consumed from this point, and these are my source and target, I'd be able to do those on MuleSoft and TIBCO more easily, but not in Red Hat Fuse. The development features of Red Hat Fuse need improvement, but I feel the team has done a lot in the latest version, and now Red Hat Fuse will be removed from the market and the focus will be on OpenShift purely. There is also a new product called Red Hat Integration and there will be a movement towards Docker because a major drawback of Red Hat Fuse is that it doesn't have small containers, so every time, you'll need dedicated virtual machines on top of those you're running, but now, it seems Kubernetes will be used. In the past, in the older version of Red Hat Fuse, you have a full container and the whole application is deployed on containers one, two, and three, so you don't have the option of splitting. It's similar to microservices, but now those things are taken care of in the latest version, and the older version of Red Hat Fuse will come to an end. An additional feature I'd like to see in Red Hat Fuse is a direct integration, particularly with CI/CD, which can help reduce overhead because you won't need to have a big DevOps team for building, preparation, and deployment. Dockers and microservices support are also additional features I'd like to see in the solution. More successful deployments will also help make Red Hat Fuse better.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We use IBM Integration Bus for document conversions."
"The solution is stable and can scale relatively easily."
"The Aspera feature for high-speed transfer is highly effective."
"The stability is mostly pretty good."
"It can be implemented as an enterprise service bus to seamlessly connect all applications within your enterprise."
"Web interface, REST API for viewing services, admin, stats, and deployment are premium features, which makes IIB stand among its competition."
"The integration with other tools is excellent. It integrates well with batch issues."
"It is a stable solution."
"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."
"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 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."
"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."
"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."
"The solution has more tooling and options."
"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."
"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."
 

Cons

"The solution needs instruction or guidance."
"We decided to move away from IBM Integration Bus for IT technical refreshments."
"The performance needs to be enhanced when working with the Toolkit."
"There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements."
"Storage capacity of the product should be addressed."
"Licensing is too high. It is quite expensive."
"IBM Integration Bus can improve by implementing no-code or drag-and-drop adapters development, similar to what is available in Red Hat."
"I would like to be able to build an Integration Bus cluster that is active-active."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."
"The pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."
"The web tools need to be updated."
"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."
"As its learning curve is quite steep, developer dependency will always be there in the case of a Red Hat Fuse development. This should be improved for developers. There should be some built-in connectors so the grind of the developer can be reduced."
"For improvement, they can consider the way we collaborate with other applications...Right now, in Red Hat Fuse, everything is not available under one umbrella."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I generally do not get involved in the licensing or pricing because I'm a hardcore technical guy, but I'm aware of the fact that IBM is highly expensive, so not everybody can afford it. All the products are licensed."
"IBM Integration Bus solution is expensive and this is one of the reasons we are looking for an alternative, such as MuleSoft."
"Our licensing is based on a five-year contract, and as far as I know, there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fee."
"The price of the IBM Integration Bus is expensive. If you compare the price to the cloud version you can purchase what you need but the on-premise version price is flat."
"It is not cheap. It has its cost. It is one of the high-cost solutions."
"The price of this product could be lower."
"IBM Integration Bus itself is prices fair but App-Connect is a bit expensive which we use in conjunction with it."
"As customers, we always try to buy things as cheaply as possible. But the price for the IBM Integration Bus is fine. When we compare it to competitors, it's pretty much the same. However, there are a lot of open-source integration platforms coming to the market as well. So overall, the price is fine as far as licensed products are concerned."
"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."
"We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it."
"We are paying around $24 million across five years."
"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."
"We found other solutions were more costly."
"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."
"Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Migration from IBM Integration Bus to Mulesoft ESB for a large enterprise tech services company
I was previously part of the Oracle SOA/OSB development team. In my current capacity I architected solutions using MuleSoft Anypoint Platform on cloud / on-premises and hybrid modes and on PCE/RTF ...
IBM Integration Bus vs Mule ESB - which to choose?
Our team ran a comparison of IBM’s Integration Bus vs. Mule ESB in order to determine what sort of ESB software was the best fit for our organization. Ultimately we decided to choose IBM Integratio...
What do you like most about IBM Integration Bus?
The message queue, like, message queue connectors. Then they have a built in connectors for most of the systems, like SAP, oracle database, and this Civil connector is there. Of course, we have thi...
What do you like most about Red Hat Fuse?
The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Red Hat Fuse?
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.
What needs improvement with Red Hat Fuse?
I haven't experienced the online part of Red Hat Fuse. Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications. Using administrative control, the operational user can view...
 

Also Known As

IBM WebSphere ESB
Fuse ESB, FuseSource
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Salesbox, €sterreichische Bundesbahnen (€BB), Road Buddy, Swiss Federal Railways, Electricity Supply Board, The Hartree Centre, ESB Networks
Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Integration Bus vs. Red Hat Fuse and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.