IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

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

"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."

"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 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."

"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."

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

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

"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."

"One of the features I found most valuable in Red Hat Fuse is that it has a lot of containers so you won't have to worry about load balancing. In the past, there was a cut-off, but nowadays, Red Hat Fuse is moving off of that, so my team is utilizing it the most for load balancing, particularly running goal applications and three to five containers. There's automatic load balancing so you won't have to worry too much. I also found that component-wise, you don't have to do much coding in Red Hat Fuse because everything is configurable, for example, XML-based coding. Coding isn't that difficult. Performance-wise, I also found the solution to be quite good and its processing is quite fast. My team is processing a huge amount of data with the help of Red Hat Fuse."

"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."

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

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

"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."

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

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

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

"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

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

"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."

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

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

"It is currently a weighty product."

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

"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."

"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."

"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 solution will be discontinued in 2024."

"The web tools need to be updated."

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

"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."

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

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

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

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"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."

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

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

"You need to pay for the license. It's not free."

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

"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."

"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."

"We found other solutions were more costly."

"Our license for Red Hat Fuse is around $27,000 per year, which is very expensive."