OpenESB vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

"One of the most valuable features is being able to implement business processes while keeping track of the design from BPMN to a BPEL Implementation."

"The process-oriented solution allows you to define choreography and orchestration."

"OpenESB pushes the organization to clearly define service boundaries and interfaces. So it motives the business and the development teams to clearly define their business services and processes they want to implement. OpenESB supports fine and coarse-grain granularity for the services and supports top-down and bottom-up approaches for the services, processes definition, and composition."

"The core is very stable."

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

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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 solution has more tooling and options."

"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."

"Regarding its management, a web console being able to synchronize distributed instances would be great."

"The documentation of the product must be improved. It could be tricky to find the right documentation on a topic since the documentation is spread in many places. I advise the new joiner to contact the community to get entry points and additional documentation. Tutorial and Video must be present to take up the product."

"The documentation needs to be better."

"Cloud deployment is weak and needs to be improved."

"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."

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

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

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

"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."

"I don't know the product last versions. I know they are migrating a microservices concepts. We still didn't get there... but we are in the process."

"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."

"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."

"The cost for the prediction instrument is high because it is charged per instances based on prediction, but the rest of the solution is free."

"The Community Edition is a full product you can use in production, it does not have limitations like other alternatives."

"There are two versions. The first is the community version, which is free and contains the last part of the feature, but if you want to get the Enterprise version, you'll have to pay €60,000 which covers support and two instances on production."

"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."

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

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

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

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

"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."

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