Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods.io comparison

Red Hat and IBM are both solutions in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category. Red Hat is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.0, while IBM is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.1. Red Hat holds a 7.2% mindshare in E, compared to IBM’s 10.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Red Hat users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 94% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Red Hat Fuse

Read 24 Red Hat Fuse reviews

1,801 Views
1,765 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

webMethods.io

Read 93 webMethods.io reviews

9,897 Views
1,781 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

Red Hat Fuse

webMethods.io

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

Red Hat Fuse and webMethods.io compete in the enterprise integration space, offering solutions for developers and businesses. Based on the data comparisons, webMethods.io seems to have an edge with its ease of use and comprehensive integration capabilities.

Features: Red Hat Fuse stands out with its integration capabilities offered through Apache Camel, providing a wide array of connectors. It is developer-friendly and flexible, praised for its scalability and reliability in complex integrations. webMethods.io is recognized for its ease of use and offers a robust set of out-of-box features with extensive connectors, providing a unified platform for diverse integration tasks and strong API management features.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Fuse faces challenges with documentation and user community support. The setup and configuration can be complex, and improvements are needed in the user interface and monitoring tools. Pricing is also a concern. webMethods.io is critiqued for its high cost and complexity in pricing models. Users suggest improved integration with legacy systems, enhanced documentation, and better version control.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both Red Hat Fuse and webMethods.io offer hybrid and cloud deployment options. Red Hat Fuse is developer-friendly but could benefit from better support and comprehensive documentation. webMethods.io provides robust customer support with comprehensive service options, although its deployment can be complex and expensive.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Fuse is perceived as more cost-effective, especially for open-source users, but initial costs are high. Users report positive ROI over time. webMethods.io is often expensive, better suited for large-scale enterprises. Despite the high cost, it delivers strong outcomes and stable integrations, offering value against the investment.

To learn more, read our detailed Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 861,524 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

Red Hat Fuse

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

6th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

webMethods.io

Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (9th), API Management (9th), Cloud Data Integration (7th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Red Hat Fuse is 7.2%, down from 7.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.9%, up from 9.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Featured Reviews

Kaushal Kedia

Technical Architect at Accenture

Offers a single console for all applications and supports Camel routing

Containerization is one key area where the product can improve, but it probably has already improved in JBOS integration. On a few occasions, our company's production team faced an issue with Red Hat Fuse; the screen displayed that the containers had gone down while, in reality, they were running in the background. The user interface and the back-end code were not in sync in the aforementioned situation, which our organization frequently faced while using Red Hat Fuse. But at our company, we were using an older version of Red Hat Fuse in which we faced the issues. From the JBOS end, the product was very frequently changed from Red Hat, and it was difficult for our clients to keep investing money in every upgrade. Six or seven years back, Red Hat Fuse was one of the best solutions.

Read full review

MohanPrasad

Senior Consultant at Brillio

Smooth integration and enhanced deployment with high licensing cost

webMethods.io was used to integrate APIs through the webMethods.io platform, trigger database events, and connect backend APIs through a Java backend. It was used extensively for integration purposes in my organization Integration became smoother, troubleshooting was easier, and deployment and…

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 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."

"The most valuable feature is that it's the same as Apache Camel."

"The stability has been good."

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

"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 would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We are an enterprise business."

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

"What I like about Red Hat Fuse is that it's a well-established integration software. I find all aspects of the tool positive."

More Red Hat Fuse pros

"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."

"All of the components are very independent but are tied together to give the business value."

"It’s fairly easy to view, move, and mange access across different components. Different component types are categorized and can be viewed in a web based administration console."

"It integrates well with various servers."

"The comprehensiveness and depth of Integration Servers' connectors to packaged apps and custom apps is unlimited. They have a connector for everything. If they don't, you can build it yourself. Or oftentimes, if there is value for other customers as well, you can talk with webMethods about creating a new adapter for you."

"How simple it is to create new solutions."

"The tool is very powerful and user-friendly."

"The development is very fast. If you know what you're doing, you can develop something very easily and very fast."

More webMethods.io pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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 monitoring experience should be better."

"Our clients would like to see the user interface improved so that it is more user-friendly."

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

More Red Hat Fuse cons

"As webMethods Integration Server is expensive, that's its area for improvement."

"The improvement needed is related to the model's position. As of now, it seems to be more of a conceptual idea rather than a widely implemented solution. For how long"

"Scalability and connectors to different cloud applications is lacking."

"When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods."

"Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion."

"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."

"The product's stability is an area of concern where improvements are required."

"webMethods Integration Server could improve on the version control. I'm not sure if Web Method has some kind of inbuilt integration with Bitbucket or GitHub or some kind of version control system. However, that's one area where they can improve."

More webMethods.io cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"After doing some Googling and comparisons, the main standouts were MuleSoft and Red Hat Fuse. One of the big factors in our decision to go with Fuse was the licensing cost. It was cheaper to go with Fuse."

"We use the standard license, but you need the container platform in order to run it."

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

"You need to pay for the license. It's not free."

"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."

"This is an expensive product. It costs a lot and although it's worth the money, the explanations that we need to give to our top executives are highly complicated."

"In terms of pricing, Red Hat Fuse is a bit expensive because nowadays, if I'm just comparing it with OpenShift with Kubernetes, so Kubernetes and OpenShift, are similar, and Kubernetes is open source, so Red Hat Fuse is quite expensive in terms of support, but Red Hat Fuse provides value for money because it provides good support. If you want to get something, you need to pay for it."

More Red Hat Fuse pricing and cost advice

"It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one."

"The price is high and I give it a five out of ten."

"I would like to see better pricing for the license."

"Always plan five years ahead and don’t jeopardize the quality of your project by dropping items from the bill of materials."

"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."

"The vendor is flexible with respect to pricing."

"It is worth the cost."

"webMethods Trading Networks is a bit costly compared to others solutions."

More webMethods.io 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

861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Answers from the Community

Andhika Sotax

Works at Nuvision Consulting

Jan 26, 2022

What are pros and cons of Red Hat Fuse vs webMethods Integration Server?

See 2 answers

Dave Koffij

Information Technology Architect, Cloud and Security at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Jul 29, 2021

With webMethods Integration Server, you have the power to connect anything faster, thanks to open, standards-based integration. Make custom, packaged and mainframe applications and databases—on-premises and in the cloud—interoperable and assure the fluid flow of data across your automated processes. Mapping and transformation functions are built-in. pro's; Easy scalability, 300+ connectors, Faster integrations, "Lift & shift" integrations, Mapping and transformation & iPaaS integrations in the cloud Where Red Hat Fuse, pros; Hybrid deployment, Built-in iPaaS with low-code UI/UX, Container-based integration & Integration everywhere supporting 200 included connectors. Red Hat Fuse, based on open source communities like Apache Camel and Apache ActiveMQ, is part of an agile integration solution. Its distributed approach allows teams to deploy integrated services where required. The API-centric, container-based architecture decouples services so they can be created, extended, and deployed independently.

Read full answer

PaulPerez

Integration Architect at Pymma consulting

Jan 26, 2022

Hello Andhika Please read Dave's reply first and understand that WebMethods offers many features that you will not find in RedHat Fuse. I would like to add one more architectural point of view. WebMethods provides a nice business process engine that helps you orchestrate your services. Fuse is not able to provide this kind of service. If your processes are simple and map information, for example, use Fuse. If your business processes are complex and require balancing, I recommend an integration tool with a business process engine (BPEL or BPMN). WebMethods, Oracle SOA Suite or OpenESB offer these types of tools. If you plan to design complex processes, you should not hesitate to choose WebMethods.

Read full answer

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Red Hat Fuse?

The process workflow, where we can orchestrate and design the application by defining different routes, is really useful.

See all answers

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

You need to pay for the license. It's not free. I'm not aware of the exact prices. There are no extra costs in addition to the standard licensing since it is a subscription-based solution.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat Fuse?

See all answers

What do you like most about Built.io Flow?

The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?

webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?

webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM Integration Bus vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 27% of the time

Mule ESB vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 20% of the time

JBoss ESB vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 18% of the time

Oracle Service Bus vs Red Hat Fuse

Compared 14% of the time

More Red Hat Fuse Competitors

IBM App Connect vs webMethods.io

Compared 8% of the time

Apigee vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Integration Bus vs webMethods.io

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

Boomi iPaaS vs webMethods.io

Compared 4% of the time

More webMethods.io Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse

June 2025

Download Red Hat Fuse product report

Buyer's Guide

webMethods.io

June 2025

Download webMethods.io product report

Also Known As

Fuse ESB, FuseSource

Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API

Overview

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

webMethods.io Integration is a powerful integration platform as a service (iPaaS) that provides a combination of capabilities offered by ESBs, data integration systems, API management tools, and B2B gateways.

IBM

Sample Customers

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

Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io

July 2025

Free Report: Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io

Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Red Hat Fuse vs. webMethods.io report.

See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors and best Cloud Data Integration 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.