IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Red Hat Fuse comparison

IBM and Red Hat are both solutions in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category. IBM is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #6 with an average rating of 7.7. IBM holds a 4.7% mindshare in E, compared to Red Hat’s 6.4% mindshare. Additionally, 84% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Read 13 IBM WebSphere Message Broker reviews

1,064 Views
734 Comparison Views

84% willing to recommend

Red Hat Fuse

Read 26 Red Hat Fuse reviews

1,410 Views
1,354 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Red Hat Fuse

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Red Hat Fuse compete in integration software. IBM WebSphere Message Broker holds an advantage in complex enterprise-level integrations, while Red Hat Fuse offers open-source flexibility and cost-efficiency.

Features: IBM WebSphere Message Broker supports a wide range of protocols and has advanced transformation capabilities, making it ideal for complex enterprise environments. Red Hat Fuse integrates seamlessly with Java, supports microservices architecture, and offers strong containerization features.

Room for Improvement: IBM WebSphere Message Broker could simplify its setup process and reduce the need for expert handling. It might also benefit from more intuitive interfaces and enhanced documentation for users. Red Hat Fuse can improve its customer support, optimize performance for high-demand operations, and enhance its user-friendly documentation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM WebSphere Message Broker's comprehensive capabilities come with a more complex setup that may require expert intervention. In contrast, Red Hat Fuse provides a simpler deployment experience and a lean learning curve, backed by developer-friendly interfaces. IBM offers extensive customer support, while Red Hat leverages community support with professional services available for subscribers.

Pricing and ROI: IBM WebSphere Message Broker has higher initial setup costs but delivers a robust ROI for large-scale enterprise operations through reliability and performance. Red Hat Fuse presents a cost-effective alternative, with lower setup costs and attractive ROI due to its open-source nature and reduced total cost of ownership.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Red Hat Fuse Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Red Hat Fuse

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,757 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

9th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Infrastructure (17th)

Red Hat Fuse

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

6th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is 4.7%, up from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Fuse is 6.4%, down from 7.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Red Hat Fuse	6.4%
IBM WebSphere Message Broker	4.7%
Other	88.9%

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Featured Reviews

BrajendraKumar

Technical Architect at HCL Technologies

Offers large-sized business information processing with a time-saving setup and impressive stability

I primarily use two previews of the product for Dev and two for QA as part of the production process. Whatever tools our company is using, the cost of a license in IBM WebSphere Message Broker is about 80% of all these software or tools. The message routing capabilities satisfy workflow efficiency. The product supports message formats of XML, JSON, and SSID, which are around 24 KB to 50 KB in size. The solution supports communication protocols like STTP and TCP. Features like DataGraph need to be introduced in IBM WebSphere Message Broker. Some of the clients of our organization are using an outdated version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker for which the vendor doesn't provide direct support anymore. For the aforementioned version, our company professionals can solve the queries on their own without seeking support from IBM. During the installation of a prior version of IBM WebSphere Message Broker, sometimes I have to configure the failovers through the cluster, where issues arise, and I often seek help from the support team. The solution is being used by some medicine companies in our organization that receive sales orders from the EDR or JDE. I would not recommend the product to others as its becoming obsolete and they can rather choose a middleware solution from Amazon or Azure. But I would overall rate the product a nine out of ten.

Read full review

Nilay Rathod

Chapter Area Lead/GM Group Architecture & IT at Spark New Zealand

Microservices have transformed our integrations and now highlight room to improve AI-driven tooling

There are areas in Red Hat Fuse that have room for improvement. We were recently having a discussion with Red Hat team building agentic AI, which we call AI SDLC. Something that the team is actively working on, but I have not really seen any production-level version of it is MCP. For us to use Red Hat Fuse with AI models, we need MCP so that we can be very confident that it can deliver us a really solid outcome when developers are using it, whether it is any of the integration patterns or messaging bus patterns. I have not seen that yet. Even though Red Hat has an alternative to that, such as a plugin, it is not as advanced as some of the MCPs that we see around.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."

"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."

"Straightforward development and deployment."

"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."

"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."

"It's reliable for our day-to-day operations, ensuring fast and secure data integration across different systems."

"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."

"The solution has good integration."

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker pros

"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."

"We use it because it is easy to integrate with any other application...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution nine out of ten."

"More than a feature, I would say that the reliability of the platform is the most valuable aspect."

"The most valuable feature is the software development environment."

"Regarding the efficiency gains from Red Hat Fuse's distributed development capabilities, when we flipped from the previous enterprise integration application to Red Hat Fuse, the TCO benefit was about 40 percent."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More Red Hat Fuse pros

Cons

"The solution can add container engines such as docker."

"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."

"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."

"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."

"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."

"It is currently a weighty product."

"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker cons

"The user interface is not good, and it is a very technical tool."

"For improvement, they can consider the way we collaborate with other applications...Right now, in Red Hat Fuse, everything is not available under one umbrella."

"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."

"Containerization is one key area where the product can improve"

"The stability of the solution is an area with a shortcoming that needs to be improved."

"Red Hat Fuse doesn't have a lot of administrative control like other applications."

"The documentation for Fuse can be improved because, while it is very detailed and extensive, it is not too intuitive for someone that has to deliver some kind of troubleshooting services. In particular, for installation, re-installation, or upgrades, I find that the documentation can be improved."

"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."

More Red Hat Fuse cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"

"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."

"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."

"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."

"The solution is expensive."

"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."

"The solution is expensive."

"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."

"We found other solutions were more costly."

"Pricing has been something that we have been working with Red Hat on, year over year. We have preferred pricing with the university because we are involved in education and research."

"The most important feature of Fuse is the cost. It is open source and a cheap option for an ESB. So, most of the clients in the Middle East and Asian countries prefer this ESB. Other ESBs, like MuleSoft and IBM API Connect, are pretty expensive. Because it is open source, Red Hat Fuse is the cheapest solution, providing almost every integration capability."

"Red Hat Fuse is an expensive tool, though I cannot answer how much it costs as that's confidential."

"We are paying around $24 million across five years."

"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."

"The solution doesn't have independent licensing."

More Red Hat Fuse pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

11%

Insurance Company

Transportation Company

Financial Services Firm

20%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	13

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?

IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM WebSphere Message Broker?

There could be greater flexibility and agility in service creation for the product. As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordi...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for IBM WebSphere Message Broker?

We use the product for exposing services at the application level, integrating with various architectures like WebSphere, and handling static service creation.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Red Hat Fuse?

When considering pricing for Red Hat Fuse, this is a pretty interesting question. When you consider cost, it is not just the cost of the software, but also the cost of development, cost of usage, a...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat Fuse?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Red Hat Fuse?

Red Hat Fuse serves as our enterprise integration platform. We do use some of the message bus features as well, but it is not the enterprise message bus.

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM Integration Bus vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 22% of the time

webMethods.io vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 13% of the time

Mule ESB vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 10% of the time

IIS vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 9% of the time

IBM BPM vs IBM WebSphere Message Broker

Compared 7% of the time

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker Competitors

IBM Integration Bus vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 25% of the time

Mule ESB vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 20% of the time

JBoss ESB vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 13% of the time

WSO2 Enterprise Integrator vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 13% of the time

Oracle Service Bus vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 10% of the time

More Red Hat Fuse Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM WebSphere Message Broker

January 2026

Download IBM WebSphere Message Broker product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse

January 2026

Download Red Hat Fuse product report

Also Known As

WebSphere Message Broker

Fuse ESB, FuseSource

Overview

WebSphere Message Broker is an enterprise service bus (ESB) providing connectivity and universal data transformation for service-oriented architecture (SOA) and non-SOA environments. It allows businesses of any size to eliminate point-to-point connections and batch processing regardless of platform, protocol or data format.

IBM

Red Hat JBoss Fuse is a lightweight, flexible integration platform that enables rapid integration across the extended enterprise - on-premise or in the cloud. JBoss Fuse includes modular integration capabilities, an enterprise service bus (ESB), to unlock information.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin Tire

Avianca, American Product Distributors (APD), Kings College Hospital, AMD, CenturyLink, AECOM, E*TRADE

Buyer's Guide

IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Red Hat Fuse

February 2026

Free Report: IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Red Hat Fuse

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Red Hat Fuse and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.