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 solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot."
"The setup is straightforward."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"The most powerful feature is DataWeave, which is a powerful language where data can be transformed from one form into another."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"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."
"This solution's adaptability to our use case has helped us integrate our systems seamlessly."
"The initial setup process is quite straightforward."
"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."
"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."
"Red Hat Fuse's best features are that it's very easy to set up and maintain."
"The stability has been good."
"The solution has more tooling and options."
"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."
"It needs more samples. Also, the dependency on Maven should be removed."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"The stability could be improved."
"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."
"Mule ESB could be more user-friendly. I think users must learn about the architecture before they start coding. The price could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an EDIFACT integration."
"From the product perspective, it was sometimes hard to manage the dependencies. When we had to add dependencies on a couple of different packages, it was sometimes confusing. It was hard to update them with Anypoint Studio, as well as with MuleSoft. There were challenges with that. So, that's one of the areas that could be improved."
"In order to meet the new trend of active metadata management, we need intelligent APIs that can retrieve new data designs and trigger actions over new findings without human intervention."
"Currently, the main point of concern for us is how flexible it is to cater to different requirements. It should be more flexible."
"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."
"In the next release, I'd like more stability and more security overall."
"The testing part, specifically when running it in the cloud, could be improved. It's a little bit complex, especially considering its cloud nature."
"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."
"As its learning curve is quite steep, developer dependency will always be there in the case of a Red Hat Fuse development. This should be improved for developers. There should be some built-in connectors so the grind of the developer can be reduced."
"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."
"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."
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 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.
