Part 2 – First output from REPAMATron – WSO2 versus FuseSource versus Talend versus the ESB market

In the previous post I shared some of the early results from REPAMATron – the technology I’ve developed that automates the process of gathering competitive marketing intelligence.

The previous post described what REPAMA and REPAMATron are all about so if you’ve landed here and have no idea what this is, then I’d recommend that you read the first post in this series. Having taken a look at how a section of the Enterprise Service Bus market (WSO2, FuseSource and Talend) communicates benefits or value propositions, I’m now going to share the research into the product features that each vendor communicates most prominently. To allow a comparison to be made between the vendors and to the market mean (the average strategy of all vendors in the segment), I first have to examine how each vendor communicates product features and determine which of the PIPESCOM categories the feature fits into.


The PIPESCOM classification allows one vendor’s marketing copy to be compared to another’s with respect to how they communicate product features. This is achieved by categorising the features that are described in the vendor’s marketing copy into the following broad categories. Packaging, Interfaces, Process, Ease of use, Speed, Commercial, Operational, Management. So for example, if a vendor describes their product as having “the ability to interface with other systems” then that would suggest they are making a claim about the product’s Interfaces. If a vendor talked about their product being available as a service then this would relate to the Packaging category of PIPESCOM. Similarly if the product is described as ‘inexpensive’ or ‘commercial-off-the-shelf software’ then that would fall into the Commercial category. You can read more about PIPESCOM here.

PIPESCOM (Product features)

The following series of charts shows the relative support for each of the PIPESCOM product feature categories found in the vendor’s marketing materials. The esb market mean displayed in the chart is the aggregate or average strategy of the 6 Enterprise Service Bus Vendors in the table below.

Progress Software Progress ESB
FuseSource Fuse ESB
Fiorano Fiorano ESB
Talend ASF
MuleSoft MuleESB

This market mean allows a comparison to be made between the results of WSO2, Talend and FuseSoruce and the ‘average’ approach vendors take to the Enterprise Service Bus market.


*The chart below shows that FuseSource stresses the interfaces the product has to other technologies. This is not surprising since an ESB exists to interface to other technologies. That said, it is clear that FuseSource’s reliance on communicating Interface features is much higher than the esb market mean (the aggregate of the 6 ESB vendors above). FuseSource does not focus on ease of use, or at least not significantly enough to register with REPAMATron.

Replaced by chart


*Talend’s product feature focus mirrors very closely the esb market mean. The exception is that Talend focuses significant effort on ease of use features – significantly more than the market mean.

Replaced by chart


*WSO2 shows an above average focus on packaging (the way the product is configured for sale/use) and the management features of the product. Similarly to FuseSource, WSO2 places little discernible focus on the ease-of-use features of its products.

Replaced by chart

FuseSource, Talend and WSO2

*The combined chart shows how each vendor stresses different product features in their outbound marketing. The differentiation between them and to the esb marketing mean is shown by their relative commitment/lack of commitment to one of the PIPESCOM categories. It appears that differentiation exists between the vendors around how Packaging, Ease-of-use, Commercial and Management features are communicated.

Replaced by chart

In future posts I will expand on the vendors in this ESB study and will also share some additional MED and text analysis tests. I’d welcome feedback about vendors that should be included in these studies and indeed what market segments I should look at next. In addition to rounding out the ESB study I plan to look at high performance messaging and master data management as I am working on client projects in those areas at the moment. Please post feedback in the comment section below or contact me here. Danny Goodall * – This is alpha software. The results and conclusions are indicative at the moment and are in no way definitive.

Posted in Competition and Competitive Intelligence, esb, marketing, REPAMATron, REPAMATron ESB Study and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>