We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus 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."IBM Integration Bus's best feature is integration."
"I have found IBM Integration Bus is very useful because it can integrate multiple backend applications."
"I am into microservices using Java Spring Boot, but if we are using legacy systems, IBM Integration Bus is very good for them. They have their own computational logic called EC12, their own proprietary language. You can do any kind of complex logic and can implement other ESVs that I have seen."
"The Cloud Pak for Integration is a useful feature."
"Promotes the reuse of developed resources to more efficiently consume resources."
"The most valuable thing is the loose coupling and making the change in only one stack of the ESB layer or the middleware layer."
"We can have multiple endpoints, and we can integrate different applications from different platforms. In a large-scale enterprise setup, it becomes so easy to establish communication between applications. You can connect an application to other applications, other legacy applications, and databases. You can also connect with those applications that are in the cloud. You can connect with other well-known applications, such as Salesforce, SAP, and Workday, by using IBM Integration Bus."
"IBM support is fantastic and quick."
"The stability has been good."
"Red Hat Fuse's best features are that it's very easy to set up and maintain."
"The support training that comes with the product is amazing."
"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."
"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."
"This solution's adaptability to our use case has helped us integrate our systems seamlessly."
"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."
"I found it was quite easy to set up and implement."
"I would like to be able to run and install this solution on different platforms."
"The solution is too expensive for smaller companies."
"I don't mind the pricing."
"IBM Integration Bus could be easier to manage, but this is true of all vendors. It doesn't always do what it says on the box."
"Its integration with Cloud Pak components could be better."
"Storage capacity of the product should be addressed."
"IBM Integration Bus isn't particularly user-friendly and has a big learning curve."
"IBM could improve its connectivity."
"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."
"While it's a good platform, the pricing is a bit high."
"The stability of the solution is an area with a shortcoming that needs to be improved."
"There is definitely a bit of a learning curve."
"The monitoring experience should be better."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"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."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 65 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". 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". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus, IBM WebSphere Message Broker and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, Oracle Service Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, JBoss ESB and webMethods Integration Server. See our IBM Integration Bus 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.
