IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

"It's reliable for our day-to-day operations, ensuring fast and secure data integration across different systems."

"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."

"IBM WebSphere Message Broker is one of the best middleware solutions"

"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."

"The solution has good integration."

"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."

"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."

"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."

"This solution's adaptability to our use case has helped us integrate our systems seamlessly."

"The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful."

"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."

"More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect."

"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."

"Red Hat Fuse's best features are that it's very easy to set up and maintain."

"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 product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor"

"As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordingly."

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."

"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."

"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."

"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."

"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."

"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."

"While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high."

"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."

"The solution will be discontinued in 2024."

"The web tools need to be updated."

"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."

"There is definitely a bit of a learning curve."

"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"The solution is expensive."

"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."

"The solution is expensive."

"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."

"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."

"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."

"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, but Red Hat Fuse provides value for money because it provides good support. If you want to get something, you need to pay for it."

"We are paying around $24 million across five years."

"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."

"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."

"We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it."

"Red Hat Fuse saved us money. It is a lot easier to license for cloud deployments."

"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."

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