Red Hat Fuse Reviews

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.

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 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.

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. 

Our customers have APIs and they develop them while we are using the gate for the code changes. They commit with the help of Jenkins so we pull that service and install that service on Jabber's use. After that, we create an ACL for that service and the rest is on the web server.

When we access the container, it crashes and then we have to kill that container, restart, and log in again. The solution should work on preventing this. 

In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall.

I have been using this solution for the last four years.

My opinion is that this solution is stable. Red Hat Fuse has some dependencies, so we are resolving them one by one.

My impression is that this solution is scalable. Currently, we are working with one customer.

The initial setup process is quite straightforward. We are using a standard setup. When it comes to deployment, I just spent four or five years doing the setup, but it can take as much as eight or 10 years.

All nodes will be deployed on VMware and not on a cloud solution.

Overall, I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

We use the solution to transform messages and integrate with backend systems for an ESB.

We're a solution integrator, so we provide solutions to our customers. 

The solution is deployed on-premises, but we might move to the cloud version. We're one version behind the latest version.

The integration layer handles all of the complexity, which results in faster implementations.

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

The monitoring experience should be better. I would like the ability to monitor the flows and be able to retrieve runtime information about their execution. The UI could also be improved.

I have used this solution for six years.

We've had minor issues in the past, but they have been resolved.

The solution is fully scalable.

The support is excellent. We are very pleased with them.

Initial setup is very straightforward.

The solution is containerized, so deployment is quite easy. Deployment can be fully automated.

It's not difficult to maintain.

Our customers have seen ROI from using this solution.

The cost is quite competitive compared to other solutions.

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

I would rate the pricing as eight out of ten.

I would rate the solution as nine out of ten.

My advice is that the solution is geared toward developers and not a citizen designer. It's not for people who want to be able to do integrations using a low code environment.

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.