Red Hat Fuse Reviews

Mostly it's combined with API management. It is for API management switches as well as the USB portions. We are using mostly email-based USB portion but we are hosting our API so in terms of exposing the API, it had been used for API management. 

The key portion, for now, is mostly under API management software. It's for the publishing of APIs then pulling the security.

It was pretty effective in aligning the software. We also like containerization capabilities. We're interested in how this container technology will develop. We're interested in the cloud and how it will develop. We're integrating a lot of things towards that end and Red Hat is helping us effectively move that way. It's opening up the prospect for more capabilities. 

The stability has been good.

The solution can scale. 

There is definitely a bit of a learning curve. We're still on the learning curve now and still trying to figure things out. We might be understaffed to really take advantage of the solution. 

We started deploying the solution in 2020.

The old version was stable. Not everything is out in the newer version, and we haven't yet started running the newer version, however, we haven't had any issues with the performance or reliability. 

It's scalable. It's been running on the container platform and if you need to create the load to have more nodes running, it's not a problem.

The pace of adding users is slow. Our developer license only covers 15 people. In terms of the business case, we haven't pushed out the API yet. That said, we do have 15 licenses for development, maintenance, and production.

The initial setup can be complex, especially, if, like us, a company is trying to learn and understand the system. We ended up getting outside assistance. 

The deployment is taking longer than anticipated. We had planned it to be nine months and we've had a lot of delays in the project start. We're kind of disappointed it's now 2022 and the solution was appointed at the end of 2020. It's been a year and four months or so of implementing it.  

We've had an implementation partner on the Red hat side as there is a bit of a learning curve and we're still trying to work things out. 

We are paying around $24 million across five years. 

We're a customer. 

We are not using the most up-to-date version.

I would advise new users to understand the whole thing is an investment that will start to look at digitization and the underlying technology to make it easy to create and develop digitization strategies. It's a good idea to start with the integration platform that can be available and that you can really step in through to think API-wise in terms of maybe early development and management. For us, even with a delay in the implementation of the technology, it will be available for future things. We're setting ourselves up for the future for now. 

While it's still new to us, in terms of the API management and what we've experienced so far, I would rate it eight out of ten. The delays have not necessarily been the fault of Red Hat, and more so of the company, which is working with limited resources.

We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application, and when we tried to do an upgrade, it was really easy for us to do that. Plus, it is compatible with other programming languages. Then, to learn and to upgrade ourselves to this platform was easy to train people who were working with us on this platform was not something new or out of the box kind of a thing. It was something people were familiar with, so that is the reason. That is one of the reasons for choosing it. Additionally, we are getting support, specifically continuous support, which is always there for us.

Feature-wise, it was easy to integrate with cloud platforms, especially other cloud platforms which are already available. Also, features like containerization are there in the solution. So, it is not necessary to go with the trend since Red Hat Fuse has already provided us with an option where if you don't want a container, you can have it as a stand-alone, or if you want a container, you can do it container-wise. So there were multiple things that we could correlate, and then we were okay going ahead with the solution.

We are still trying to learn so much from it. So, I am looking for my improvement since it is always one step ahead of me. So, yeah, I'm trying to learn so much from it.

It is always a surprise to get new features, but it is not something on top of my head where I could suggest a new feature.

For improvement, they can consider the way we collaborate with other applications, if that is something feasible, considering the way it has provided us stand-alone support and continuous like CI/CD support. So, if there is something on which the whole team can collaborate onto. So, when we merge our tools, we don't have to go to Azure services since we can just have everything under one umbrella. Right now, in Red Hat Fuse, everything is not available under one umbrella. So, I'm sure it must be something very huge and big to ask, but if there is something that can be done to bring everything under one umbrella, then it would be great.

I have been using Red Hat Fuse for four to five years. I am using Red Hat Fuse 7.0.

Right now, it seems stable with the newest upgrade. But, again, you don't know how traffic and everything will be managed, so we are still in between how it will work out. Maybe in the next couple of three months, we will know exactly how stable the current platform is before forming an opinion. Currently, we don't have any issues with the platform.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten. We are still migrating from the old platform to the new one. When I say the old platform, we have been upgrading from the older version to the newer version. So, we still need to see the feasibility and how much it has helped us. So, one point is not given, considering the need to check how the solution will help us in the next six months. The solution which currently has been provided to us is, like, equal to the speed at which the world is traveling, so I definitely feel overwhelmed working on this platform. Since it is an excellent product, I rate the overall product a ten out of ten.

Whenever we needed support from Red Hat, they were always available. They were just one ticket or email away from us. They offer support twenty-four hours and seven days a week. I rate the support a ten out of ten.

Positive

When I say deployment process, like, initially, we were using OCP directly to, like, finish when we do any development work on a local, we put the service on to JAR file, and after having it packed into a JAR file, and then on to an OCP platform, we upgrade since there is also an option with Red Hat Fuse which allows you to combine it to the cloud platform like Azure. So, we did that with Azure, Red Hat, and OCP, and now we have got CI/CD. So, all you need to do is, like, buttons. You don't even need to get into the server and look into the health. Everything is lined up for you. You can easily have it on one board. So that's how it has helped. I'm not sure if Red Hat has any CI/CD platform, while currently, Azure has it, like a board system, and onto it you can have Agile, like, to create where the team can create the task and all, like a Kanban board. And each task can be assigned to pull any activity you are doing. If you are deploying anything, you can simply map it to the task assigned. So, not everybody is technical in the team, but people do understand terminologies, so if a developer is doing any deployment work, at least he can inform the whole team what has happened. They don't need to know the nitty-gritty of how it is happening. Also, you don't need to drop an email or tell anyone personally that, yes, I have done it. It is already there on both, like, to set one place, you don't need to write down anything to anyone.

It is always good to try something new, and it is like, you don't know what will come out of it. After using it, I realized how good the platform is, and if I see how I was when I started off five years ago and where I am today, it has definitely improved a lot and helped me a lot. Even with the scaling and performance part, it has really helped from a developer's perspective. So, it has helped us to provide improvised solutions to our end customers.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

Red Hat Fuse is mostly used for integration, where you have different sets, different APIs: northbound and southbound, and you just integrate them, so Apache Camel and Red Hat Fuse become an ESB container.

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.

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.

As we work with containers, it takes about a minute or so. Red Hat Fuse is much faster than the traditional web application server, but it's much slower than the latest modern technologies such as Spring Boot, so there could still be some improvement there.

Red Hat Fuse also doesn't have a UI navigator and a UI-based workforce filter, and though those are all external, they could help improve Red Hat Fuse.

An additional feature we'd like to see in the next release of Red Hat Fuse is the UI resource wizard that would allow us to easily drag and drop tools. They should have a UI-based wizard where we can just drag and drop connectors, connect them, and do the graphics. We can always do coding for deeper requirements, but having a no-code, local setup in Red Hat Fuse, where we can drag, drop and build our workflows, connection instances, and services, and also design an entire workflow would be a good addition to the solution.

I've been using Red Hat Fuse for ten years. It used to be JBoss Fuse before it became Red Hat Fuse.

The scalability of Red Hat Fuse is fine. We didn't encounter any problems with the scalability of the solution. Within the controls of realism and with all the concurrent connections that are allowed, Red Hat Fuse does fairly well. We did some limited automated testing of concurrent pockets which were allowed, and it was pretty decent.

We required the help of the technical support team for Red Hat Fuse for a couple of projects. We had support licenses, particularly the enterprise version. We reached out to their technical support and they responded. On a scale of one to five, with one being bad and five being excellent, I'm rating support a four.

We've worked with IBM Integration Bus, and switching over to Red Hat Fuse depends on the customers and their preferences. One of the reasons for switching is that being open source has a bigger advantage, especially because you just need support licenses to move to the enterprise version, and won't really need to get enterprise level licenses. That made Red Hat Fuse more affordable versus IBM or any other ESB tool.

Another reason for switching is Red Hat Fuse is built over Apache technology, so it is very well supported. Camel CXS and other similar solutions are pretty well known and there's lot of community support or developer support around those products.

As containers are built on top of products such as Red Hat Fuse, the solution also becomes very usable.

The initial setup for Red Hat Fuse was a little bit complex, especially when compared with Spring Boot. Though there was a little bit of complexity involved during the setup of Red Hat Fuse, it was still manageable. The setup for the solution was okay.

We did a generic deployment for Red Hat Fuse in-house. We didn't use a third party for deployment, but I'm not sure if we'll need to work with one if we have to deploy the solution in a microservice architecture with one service per container, or how we'll go about doing it. That is something that we never figured out, but now that there's a requirement for deploying Red Hat Fuse in a microservice architecture which is something that we have not seen so far, we have to decide on how we'll go about it.

Our customers have seen ROI from Red Hat Fuse. We deployed the solution for our customers, and they've experienced a reduction in their total cost of ownership of Red Hat Fuse.

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.

My company is using multiple versions of Red Hat Fuse for multiple customers.

My company provides Red Hat Fuse services to customers. At least four or five customers use it. As for the maintenance of the solution, once it is in production, only one person is required to handle maintenance. It depends on the SLA, but Red Hat Fuse is not that maintenance-heavy. It doesn't require much maintenance.

I'm recommending Red Hat Fuse to others because it's affordable and it's built on top of technology that is pretty popular and well supported.

I'm rating Red Hat Fuse eight out of ten. It's resourceful, has a  pretty decent performance, is built on popular technology, and it's very affordable.

My company is both a customer and an integration partner of Red Hat Fuse.

The primary use case of this solution is to implement our microservices and refactor our monolith products. Not the environment, but libraries that you can build pretty sophisticated workflows

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

Red Hat Fuse is a Red Hat version of an Open-Source platform called the Budget Camel.

Red Hat Fuse doesn't have UI really. It's a package that is used for development purposes. The UI is coming in place during the development process, you can create a skeleton of your orchestration when using the solution, and it'll generate your code. So basically we can have an ID with a plugin for the solution, and this will generate a skeleton or a simple flow. But of course, it's not enough for real sophisticated implementations, however, it works as a starter. A visualization plugin feature would improve the solution. Perhaps it is less connected to the solution itself, but to another tool that is connected to Red Hat Fuse.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is a Java package so there is no setup.

The solution doesn't have independent licensing. It's a part of the Red Hat integration suite or integration platform for that name. So this platform includes at least until recently, Red Hat 3scale, Red Hat Fuse, and Red Hat AMQ. Three products.

The difference between Red Hat Fuse and Apache Camel is that Apache Camel Open-Source is really not that big, not that much, and the only differentiator which was important for us, is that Red Hat Fuse has enterprise support while Apache Camel doesn't. So in our case, it was important to have enterprise support.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is a Red Hat version of the Apache Camel which has been discontinued. The solution will be discontinued in 2024. There are already plans to move to a different product called Camel 3.

There is not that much they can improve with the solution. They're just taking another Apache product and wrapping it up, and branding it as Red Hat, by giving the enterprise support for this version of the Open-Source product.

Michael:

From a version perspective, there is maintenance, When you need to move from one version to another. And this part, usually Red Hat is giving a good heads up and tries not to break compatibility as well. Unless they're changing the versions that are not compatible, of course, some features will not be compatible. But from an information perspective, they're giving a good heads-up and a good explanation.

I am an Integration Consultant. At my company, we are using Red Hat Fuse as our integration suite so we can connect all of our different software components.

Red Hat Fuse is developer friendly. The solution has more tooling and options. Because it is based on existing platforms, it is easy to implement, as you don't need to relearn everything. It is everything I want from a full integration solution.

In the future, I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse. It is fairly new, so there is not a lot of information on the web about it right now.

I have been using Red Hat Fuse for three years.

The solution is relatively stable. It is not as stable as existing solutions from Oracle and IBM, however, Red Hat is fast at releasing patches if there are any concerns.

We have 15 developers in our organization using the solution.

Technical support is responsive. This is one of the product's strengths. They are helpful and willing to work through any problems or questions you may have.

As an example, we had one implementation bug, and they walked us through the steps to resolve it. It was a problem on our end. In another situation, an issue we raised was a bug in their code. They released a patch within a few days.

Positive

Coming from proprietary languages like Oracle and IBM, Red Hat Fuse is more developer friendly. There is more retooling and more options. It is also based on existing platforms, so it's easier to implement.

The initial setup is straightforward compared to other solutions on the market.

Deployment of Red Hat Fuse takes three days to set everything up from scratch.

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

As long as you are a Java developer, Red Hat Fuse is easier to learn than other integration solutions on the market. It's a Java framework first, making it quite easy to pick up and go.

I would rate the product an eight out of 10 overall.

Our company provides IT services. Some of the projects that we do are integration projects and we use Fuse to help customers solve their integration problems.

In our latest project, we integrated one legacy system with a new system they were implementing. We used Red Hat Fuse and AMQ to solve the integration situation. One system did not have a modern API, and the only thing exposed as integration points were database tables. The other system had more options, but to connect it to the database interface, we decided to implement a Fuse application to translate things and make it reusable and modular. 

It's deployed on-prem, as a stand-alone, on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, with an AMQ master sight configuration and two clustered Fuse nodes.

Because it was relatively easy to get set up, it saved us a lot of time in building the solution. 

In terms of functionality, it's influencing a key piece of integration, one that actually allows our company to operate. It makes possible a core part of our business.

The most valuable part of Fuse is the fact that it's based on Red Hat Apache Camel. It is really good that it already comes with so many different connectors. That makes it relatively easy to use. We use their XML definition to define the routes, making it really easy to define the routing.

Because Apache Camel is widely used, it was quite easy to find examples for use cases that are similar to ours. We were able to get it set up and do a proof of concept quite easily, without relying on the external consultants too much. The fact that we could download it with the developer license and set up a test environment and try things out, before we committed to purchasing an actual subscription, was also very helpful in getting us set up quickly. 

Some of the official Red Hat documentation could be improved a little bit. It was a little difficult to find exactly what I was looking for. I was eventually able to find it. It's there, but it was hard to find. 

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.

We deployed Fuse on JBoss EAP and the user interface could be improved with some type of dashboarding. That would be useful because, when we got it set up, there wasn't anything that we could readily just turn on to monitor its performance. It turned out there actually was, and I eventually found it, but it wasn't quite handy. It would have been really great if, as part of deploying Fuse on JBoss EAP, we could easily get to measuring performance and have the ability to monitor things, without having to dive into configuration or to deploy other stuff.

I used it from 2018 through to April of this year. I will likely start using it again in the next month or two, as part of my consulting work for the IT services company I work for. We use Red Hat Fuse with Red Hat AMQ.

It's been very stable. Since we put it into production, there really haven't been any issues. It has been reliable.

It's very scalable. We haven't had to utilize its full potential. While I was using it, I found out about the possibility of containerizing it. That seems great. In the future, I think I'll continue to use it in other projects. For our use case, we didn't need to employ all of that, partly because the organization that we were doing the project for wasn't ready, and their infrastructure wasn't ready. But I'd rate it as very scalable.

I believe we used Red Hat technical support once because we were using the partner. My impression at the time was that it was a good experience, but the response was not as fast as I would've liked.

Positive

This is the first integration solution we have used.

Once I understood how to do it, it was straightforward. You just download EAP, start it up, download Fuse, build an application, and deploy onto it. Those things are quite easy to do, but there were some fundamental knowledge gaps that I had to close, before I could do that. When I first got started using Red Hat Fuse, I hadn't been really deep into the open source Java ecosystem. I was familiar with bits of it, but there were some things it seems they assume you know, things that help you set it up easily. 

It's hard to measure exactly what our deployment time was because we've made a bunch of improvements along the way. But from the time we decided to use it until we got a proof of concept set up—a minimum viable product—was about a month.

It would have been helpful if there were a prerequisite list, along the lines of: in order to use this, you need to know these concepts. Once I got the prerequisites, it took me a month to download it, find some examples, do a little tweaking, build a simple application, put it up, and do a basic test.

We did engage a Red Hat partner a little bit, Section6, to refine the design by designing some of the finer parts of it.

Our experience with Section6 was mostly good. Some of them were ex-Red Hat employees. They were professional. They knew what they were talking about, although there were varying levels of experience within their team. Some of them were really great and some of them were not as great. But overall, the experience was good.

We looked into MuleSoft a little bit. 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. And from a developer and system architecture point of view, I liked Red Hat better because it is open source. There were a lot of examples online, and there was a wider ecosystem. I could pick and choose among all of the possibilities and the different projects that Red Hat was managing. I liked that part of it. An aspect of that had to do with containerization. I could see that, in the future, it would be really easy to put things together and evolve the solution later, if necessary.

My advice to somebody looking into this product would be: Be prepared to do a lot of reading. But the tool is quite flexible and quite powerful.

We are mainly using it for integration with external solutions. The interface is satisfactory. Mainly, we are using a few integrations with Red Hat Fuse, specifically on OpenShift. Because recently, they renamed it.

The AMQ strings are the most valuable. Also, it's Apache Camel compliant. There are a lot of components, but one component, in particular, stands out.

The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature. 

Apache Camel has many components that are challenging as well. For example, Apache Camel K is difficult to test because they are dedicated to cloud infrastructure.

We have been using this solution for over six years. We are using the latest versions.

It is stable. We didn't have any issues with stability. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

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

The customer service and support team is good. We didn't require any specific support for this solution. But I had one issue ticket, and the response time was quick. 

Positive

From my point of view, the installation of Red Hat Fuse is relatively easy. You just need to open OpenShift Operators and install it. It's easy to install.

We have it on the cloud. OpenShift is considered a cloud product, although we have it installed in our own data centers. It's like a private cloud.

The deployment depends on what you are installing and configuring. But typically, it can be done in a matter of hours. For end-to-end things like Kafka, it depends on how you install it because it requires a specific kind of storage. It's not difficult to install Kafka, but you need to prepare the storage beforehand.

If you don't need very high performance, you can do it in less than one hour. But if you want to have highly performant storage, it takes more time to prepare the storage.

In our project, I deployed the solution. However, maintenance depends on what you install and configure. If you have any issues, it's possible to involve some maintenance. If there are changes in your application or business model, you may need to adjust some parameters, like Kafka topics, for example. In general, the only maintenance I do is to update to a new version.

Maintenance is very application specific and how you evaluate them in terms of settings.

It is a good price. It is not expensive. We have a yearly-based license. There are no additional costs to the standard license. 

From my point of view, it's a very good option, especially if you are considering a flexible integration approach. It can be run on-premises or in the cloud, but running it in the cloud is the right choice, in my opinion.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution in financial operations and banking. 

The solution has improved the way our company works on a variety of levels. 

Overall, it is a very, very good platform.

The support training that comes with the product is amazing. 

There are a lot of engineers that know the platform. In Argentina, it's very popular.

It offers a very simple setup.

The capabilities it has to integrate and communicate with other systems are impressive.

We have not found we are missing any features. 

While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high.

I've been using the solution for five or six years. 

The solution is quite stable. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We have about 100 to 150 users on the product right now. We do plan to increase usage in the future. 

Technical support has been very good in general.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is very straightforward and simple to set up. It's not overly complicated or complex. 

I'd rate the overall ease of deployment at a three out of five. We deployed over the course of one year.

For maintenance, we have two or three people that can handle anything related to that. We don't need any more than that. 

We have a reseller consultant who can assist with the initial setup.

We've absolutely seen an ROI.

The solution is fairly expensive. It's more suited for enterprise-level companies and not necessarily small or medium-sized ones. You do need to pay a bit more to handle consulting and implementation. 

We did look into OpenShift before choosing this solution. OpenShift required us to integrate with other solutions. 

I'm not sure which exact version of the solution I'm using.

We are a Red hat partner. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's a solid, stable platform.