IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

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

"The solution has good integration."

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

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

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

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

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

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

"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."

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

"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."

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

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

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

"It is currently a weighty product."

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

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"The solution will be discontinued in 2024."

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

"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."

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

"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 solution is expensive."

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

"The solution is expensive."

"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."

"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."

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

"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 found other solutions were more costly."

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