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

Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
23
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
91
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (4th), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (8th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)
 

Featured Reviews

AwaisOmer - PeerSpot reviewer
The cheapest solution but the learning curve is steep
Red Hat has the latest, cutting-edge features, but the learning curve is difficult due to its configurations. For the client, it has a good cost, but for developers, it is a bit of a grind. If a new company is doing Red Hat Fuse development for the first time, there is a bit of a learning curve. They will need to spend time on getting some things ready. 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. Developers for Red Hat Fuse are scarce all over the world and the community is not well-built. That can be a problem for big companies.
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

"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."
"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 solution has more tooling and options."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"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 stability has been good."
"Red Hat Fuse's best features are that it's very easy to set up and maintain."
"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."
"The messaging part is the most valuable feature."
"The connectivity that the tool provides, along with the functionalities needed for our company's business, are some of the beneficial aspects of the product."
"Some of the key features are the integration platform, query mechanism, message handling within the bus, and the rules engine. We've had a really good experience with webMethods Integration Server."
"It’s fairly easy to view, move, and mange access across different components. Different component types are categorized and can be viewed in a web based administration console."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"The comprehensiveness and depth of Integration Servers' connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is unlimited. They have a connector for everything. If they don't, you can build it yourself. Or oftentimes, if there is value for other customers as well, you can talk with webMethods about creating a new adapter for you."
"When it comes to the user interface, I'm already really used to it. I cannot say anything against it. For me, it's easy to use."
 

Cons

"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."
"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."
"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."
"There is definitely a bit of a learning curve."
"While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high."
"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."
"The monitoring experience should be better."
"The solution's release management feature could be better."
"Support is expensive."
"I'd like to see the admin portal for managing the integration server go up a level, to have more capabilities and to be given a more modern web interface."
"Some of the things that we use cannot be done in this solution. For these things, we have to either use a Java service or a util service. There is no predefined or existing service that we can use. So, we have to work on the util service and write on top of it. Its price can also be better. It is pretty costly because they charge us for each transmission."
"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."
"webMethods.io Integration's installation is complex. It should also improve integration and connectors."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Red Hat Fuse saved us money. It is a lot easier to license for cloud deployments."
"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."
"Our license for Red Hat Fuse is around $27,000 per year, which is very expensive."
"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."
"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 are paying around $24 million across five years."
"Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."
"webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."
"The price of webMethods Integration Server isn't that high from an enterprise context, but open-source ESB solutions will always be the cheapest."
"It is worth the cost."
"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."
"The pricing is a yearly license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 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
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
 

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?
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...
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
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

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: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.