Red Hat Fuse vs WSO2 Enterprise Integrator comparison

"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."

"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."

"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 support training that comes with the product is amazing."

"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."

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

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

"The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."

"It was mostly easy to set up the product."

"The drag-and-drop features for connectors are very valuable."

"The solution's technical support is very knowledgeable."

"The learning curve for this solution is very good."

"WSO2's analytics capability is good, considering the ELC support they provide."

"The solution's customer service is good."

"The solution basically conforms to our standards."

"The stability is excellent."

"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."

"My company doesn't have any experience with other messaging tools, so it's difficult to mention what areas could be improved in Red Hat Fuse, but it could be pricing because I find it expensive."

"The main issue with Red Hat Fuse is the outdated and scattered documentation."

"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."

"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."

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

"The pricing model could be adjusted. The price should be lower."

"The setup can be difficult for those not familiar with the solution."

"The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required."

"WSO2 libraries are not mature enough. For example, if you want to integrate with Kafka using its Kafka library, it often has many bugs."

"In my opinion, the administration model and interface, of Carbon, are lacking in terms of its features and user experience."

"One of the reasons that we are looking for a replacement is their way of defining integration. The language of the XML structures that I use to describe the integrations are not that standard, and it's not easy to find people who are familiar with this approach."

"I would like to see them bring back a feature, from earlier versions, that was very useful in debugging and finding issues."

"The integration capabilities need to be improved."

"They should introduce better pricing for small companies."

"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."

"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."

"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 found other solutions were more costly."

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

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

"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."

"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."

"I rate the product price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."

"It is a low-cost solution."

"The solution costs about 20,000 or 30,000 euros per year, per instance."

"The cost is better than IBM Cloud Pak."

"The open-source, unsupported version is available free of charge."

"The pricing of WSO2 Enterprise Integrator for enterprise subscriptions can be considered expensive, especially from the perspective of someone who prefers open-source software."