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

Mule ESB vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Mule ESB
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
47
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat Fuse
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
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 Mule ESB is 25.2%, up from 24.9% 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

PurbayanSaha - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 9, 2024
Has API-led architecture and provides a unique, user-friendly, and scalable architecture for hosting APIs
We're using our Mule ESB mostly for integration projects for multinational companies that do business on a B2C or B2B basis. We also work with companies with multiple third-party vendors employed under their payroll. The Mule ESB helps integrate data from third-party systems or vendors with the…
Kaushal  Kedia - PeerSpot reviewer
May 26, 2022
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

"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"It is easily deployable and manageable. It has microservices-based architecture, which means that you can deploy the solution based on your needs, and you can manage the solution very easily."
"Easy connectivity and easy integration."
"It was pretty fast to develop APIs on this platform, which is something I liked about it. So, the time to value was pretty good."
"Scalability and load balancing."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"This solution's adaptability to our use case has helped us integrate our systems seamlessly."
"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."
"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."
"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."
"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."
"The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."
 

Cons

"The current version will not be supported for much longer."
"The Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight."
"MuleSoft isn't as mature as some other integration technologies out there like IBM WebSphere. There's room for growth, and MuleSoft is working toward that."
"It needs more samples. Also, the dependency on Maven should be removed."
"The solution isn't as stable as we'd like it to be. There are some ongoing issues and therefore Mule has to provide frequent patches. Mule's core IP should be more stable overall."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"In an upcoming release, I would like to see more additional concept for exception handling, batch processing, and increased integration with other application."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
"The monitoring experience should be better."
"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."
"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."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Fuse is the deployment process because it's still very heavy. It's containerized, but now with Spring Boot and other microservices-related containers, deployment is still very heavy. Red Hat Fuse still has room for improvement in terms of becoming more containerized and more oriented."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"The stability of the solution is an area with a shortcoming that needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The various features and components for this solution are no longer free."
"I think the price is very high. If you use TIBCO BW, the license is for the CPU usage, then the IPS, and support. I also think the license for the product is a one-time expense."
"Plan your licensing model (cloud or on-premises or hybrid) that will allow seamless integration with new partners."
"The pricing must be improved."
"This product is expensive, but it does offer value for money."
"Most of the challenges that I had with this solution were for smaller customers. There is not a good licensing model or pricing model. It is more expensive than other solutions, and that's the downside of MuleSoft. I had to be creative to be able to sell it to the business, but we did. This is something they have to work on because for large companies, it's affordable, but for small and medium businesses, it's very hard to sell."
"You will not get any support from Mule ESB's team for the tool's community edition...You can get support with the licensed version of Mule ESB."
"Mule ESB is a costly solution. We pay approximately $80,000 annually for the system. The cost of the number of instances, annual subscription, and cloud hosting services are expensive."
"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."
"You need to pay for the license. It's not free."
"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 found other solutions were more costly."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."
"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

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 Mule ESB?
The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot.
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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Fuse ESB, FuseSource
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ube, PacificComp, University of Witwatersrand, Justice Systems, Camelot
Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE
Find out what your peers are saying about Mule ESB vs. Red Hat Fuse and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.