IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."

"Straightforward development and deployment."

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

"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."

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

"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."

"It's very lightweight. There's no need for any specialized tools in order to deploy any service for Red Hat Fuse."

"The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."

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

"The solution is stable. We have gone for months or years without any issue. There are no memory restarts, so from my point of view, it's very stable."

"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."

"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."

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

"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."

"It is currently a weighty product."

"The solution can add container engines such as docker."

"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."

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

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

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

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

"The solution will be discontinued in 2024."

"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."

"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."

"The stability of the solution is an area with a shortcoming that needs to be improved."

"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."

"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."

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

"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."

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

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

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

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

"The solution is expensive."

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

"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."

"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 found other solutions were more costly."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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