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

Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Red Hat Fuse
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Red Hat Fuse is 7.3%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.7%, up from 9.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

Kaushal Kedia - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers a single console for all applications and supports Camel routing
Containerization is one key area where the product can improve, but it probably has already improved in JBOS integration. On a few occasions, our company's production team faced an issue with Red Hat Fuse; the screen displayed that the containers had gone down while, in reality, they were running in the background. The user interface and the back-end code were not in sync in the aforementioned situation, which our organization frequently faced while using Red Hat Fuse. But at our company, we were using an older version of Red Hat Fuse in which we faced the issues. From the JBOS end, the product was very frequently changed from Red Hat, and it was difficult for our clients to keep investing money in every upgrade. Six or seven years back, Red Hat Fuse was one of the best solutions.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."
"The solution has more tooling and options."
"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."
"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."
"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."
"The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful."
"More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect."
"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 most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"Application integrations are offered out-of-the-box, and that is extremely important to us. This is one of the main use cases that we have for it. It is about 60 to 70 percent of the workload in our application today."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"It integrates well with various servers."
"I like the tool's scalability."
"It's very flexible and a good platform to use."
"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
 

Cons

"The pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."
"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."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."
"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."
"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."
"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"The price should be reduced to make it more affordable."
"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."
"The Software AG Designer could be more memory-efficient or CPU-efficient so that we can use it with middle-spec hardware."
"In terms of improvements, maybe on the API monetization side, having users able to create separate consumption plans and throttle all those consumption plans towards the run time could be better."
"Prices should be reduced, ideally by up to 30% for long-term customers like us."
"One area that needs improvement is the version upgrade process. Many customers I've worked with encounter challenges when transitioning from their current version, such as x or 9, to a newer version. The process is not smooth, and they must shift their entire website."
"The UI for the admin console is very old. It hasn't been updated for years and is pretty much the same one that we started with. This is something that could be refreshed and made more modern."
"They should develop clear visibility for the onboarding."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."
"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."
"We are paying around $24 million across five years."
"Our license for Red Hat Fuse is around $27,000 per year, which is very expensive."
"We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it."
"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."
"webMethods.io Integration's pricing is high and has yearly subscription costs."
"I signed a three-year deal with them. It is a yearly locked-in price for the next three years."
"I do see a lack of capabilities inside of the monetization area for them. They have a cloud infrastructure that is pay per use type of a thing. If you already use 1,000 transactions per se, then you can be charged and billed. I see room for improvement there for their side on that particular capability of the monetization."
"Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials."
"Most of my clients would like the price of the solution to be reduced."
"The solution’s pricing is too high."
"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."
"It is worth the cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

AS
Jan 26, 2022
Jan 26, 2022
With webMethods Integration Server, you have the power to connect anything faster, thanks to open, standards-based integration. Make custom, packaged and mainframe applications and databases—on-premises and in the cloud—interoperable and assure the fluid flow of data across your automated processes. Mapping and transformation functions are built-in. pro's; Easy scalability, 300+ connectors, ...
See 2 answers
DK
Jul 29, 2021
With webMethods Integration Server, you have the power to connect anything faster, thanks to open, standards-based integration. Make custom, packaged and mainframe applications and databases—on-premises and in the cloud—interoperable and assure the fluid flow of data across your automated processes. Mapping and transformation functions are built-in. pro's; Easy scalability, 300+ connectors, Faster integrations, "Lift & shift" integrations, Mapping and transformation & iPaaS integrations in the cloud Where Red Hat Fuse, pros; Hybrid deployment, Built-in iPaaS with low-code UI/UX, Container-based integration & Integration everywhere supporting 200 included connectors. Red Hat Fuse, based on open source communities like Apache Camel and Apache ActiveMQ, is part of an agile integration solution. Its distributed approach allows teams to deploy integrated services where required. The API-centric, container-based architecture decouples services so they can be created, extended, and deployed independently.
PP
Jan 26, 2022
Hello Andhika Please read Dave's reply first and understand that WebMethods offers many features that you will not find in RedHat Fuse. I would like to add one more architectural point of view. WebMethods provides a nice business process engine that helps you orchestrate your services. Fuse is not able to provide this kind of service.  If your processes are simple and map information, for example, use Fuse.  If your business processes are complex and require balancing, I recommend an integration tool with a business process engine (BPEL or BPMN). WebMethods, Oracle SOA Suite or OpenESB offer these types of tools.  If you plan to design complex processes, you should not hesitate to choose WebMethods.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
18%
Insurance Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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?
Containerization is one key area where the product can improve, but it probably has already improved in JBOS integration. On a few occasions, our company's production team faced an issue with Red H...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

Fuse ESB, FuseSource
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.