We performed a comparison between Mule ESB and Red Hat Fuse based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"The most valuable features of Mule ESB are its ease of use, documentation, ease to adapt to newer security and vulnerabilities, and a lot of help available. Additionally, there is a lot of flexibility, many patches available, and they provide APIs. They are a market standard."
"It was pretty fast to develop APIs on this platform, which is something I liked about it. So, the time to value was pretty good."
"The solution has a good graphical interface."
"The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot."
"Most of our use cases are for Salesforce. So, the connectors for Salesforce have been really helpful. They've made development two times faster."
"The setup is straightforward."
"I am impressed with the product's connectors and scalability."
"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."
"I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."
"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 most valuable feature is the software development environment."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."
"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."
"More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect."
"The solution's setup needs to be a bit more straightforward and its support needs to respond faster."
"One area that could be improved is the way that policies are propagated when APIs are moved from one environment to another. It's an issue, but when you develop and test the rest APIs in a lower environment and need to move them, there's a propagation process. This process moves certain aspects of the APIs, like the basic features. But when we move them, the policies don't always move with them. The policies should be able to move so we don't have to redo them manually. There are some APIs we use, but it's a bit tedious."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"Community editions need more attention."
"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."
"The price of Mule ESB could improve."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"We would like the ability to use our own code. This would allow us to develop customizations with ease. Additionally, it would be nice to have more analytics or insights on the exchanged information between databases."
"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."
"The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature."
"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."
"Red Hat is not easy to learn. You can learn it but you sometimes need external expertise to implement solutions."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"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."
"I would like to see more up-to-date documentation and examples from Red Hat Fuse."
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 45 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. Mule ESB is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Fuse writes "Configurable, doesn't require much coding, and has an automatic load balancing feature, but its development features need improvement". Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, JBoss ESB and webMethods Integration Server. See our Mule ESB vs. Red Hat Fuse report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
