We performed a comparison between Oracle Service 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."The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can connect with different applications."
"Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters."
"With Oracle Service Bus, we can connect with different types of systems. Another feature I like the most is the security feature."
"Overall it is a pretty good solution."
"I like the ease of deployment and the ease of implementation."
"Supports multiple protocol technologies and web services."
"There are always continuous improvements that are happening."
"The solution is quite stable overall. We haven't witnessed any performance issues so far."
"The solution is stable. We have gone for months or years without any issue. There are no memory restarts, so from my point of view, it's very stable."
"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"With a premium, one can get support 24 hours."
"More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect."
"The initial setup is likely complex for many organizations."
"The weak point of OSB is the single point of failure."
"The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production."
"This solution would benefit from having more cloud-based adapters."
"This solution should work better with RESTful services."
"There are some loopholes in service and support."
"It would be ideal if they could optimize it a bit."
"The connectivity with the solution is an area that needs to be improved. On occasion, requests are lost due to losing connectivity."
"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."
"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."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"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."
"The stability of the solution is an area with a shortcoming that needs to be improved."
"The monitoring experience should be better."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"The solution will be discontinued in 2024."
Oracle Service Bus is ranked 5th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 25 reviews while Red Hat Fuse is ranked 4th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 23 reviews. Oracle Service Bus is rated 7.8, while Red Hat Fuse is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Oracle Service Bus writes "Enables us to do a lot of aggregation and routing, but API response can be a problem if the payload is heavy". 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". Oracle Service Bus is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, whereas Red Hat Fuse is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, JBoss ESB and webMethods Integration Server. See our Oracle Service 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.