A Practical Deployment Comparison Guide
CloudHub 2.0 has reached general availability, and many MuleSoft customers now reassess how they deploy and operate integrations. As teams compare CloudHub 2.0 vs CloudHub 1.0 vs Runtime Fabric, they face growing pressure to deliver faster releases, maintain high reliability, and meet stricter security requirements, while platform complexity continues to increase. Because runtime decisions affect cost, risk, and delivery speed, teams now treat deployment selection as a strategic platform choice.
This guide compares CloudHub 2.0, CloudHub 1.0, Runtime Fabric on virtual machines, and Runtime Fabric on self-managed Kubernetes. It explains how each option differs across operations, security, scalability, and long-term readiness, helping architects and integration leaders make confident, future-aligned decisions.
What Is CloudHub 2.0
CloudHub 2.0 provides a fully managed, container-based integration platform as a service. Teams deploy APIs and integrations as lightweight containers that run on Kubernetes infrastructure managed by MuleSoft. This model removes the need to manage virtual machines or Kubernetes clusters directly, while still delivering cloud-native scalability.
As teams adopt CloudHub 2.0, they gain faster onboarding, stronger application isolation, and predictable scaling behavior. The platform also allows MuleSoft to release new capabilities more quickly, which helps organizations keep pace with evolving integration and API management demands.
CloudHub 2.0 became generally available on August 16, 2022.
CloudHub 2.0 Comparison at a High Level
At a foundational level, CloudHub 2.0 emphasizes operational simplicity and consistency. The platform automates provisioning, scaling, and recovery, which reduces manual effort and operational risk as environments grow. CloudHub 1.0 relies on virtual machine-based workers, which often require additional configuration and tuning as workloads increase.
Runtime Fabric offers the greatest level of control, although teams must manage infrastructure, networking, and Kubernetes operations themselves. Because of this responsibility shift, Runtime Fabric typically fits organizations with established platform engineering practices.
Onboarding and Day-to-Day Operations
CloudHub 2.0 enables teams to create environments quickly using private spaces and simplified networking configuration. Automated ingress and load balancing reduce setup time, while standardized defaults help teams maintain consistency across environments.
CloudHub 1.0 requires more manual setup for VPCs, VPNs, and dedicated load balancers, particularly as application counts grow. Runtime Fabric introduces even more upfront effort, since teams must provision cloud infrastructure, install Kubernetes, and maintain the platform over time.
These differences directly influence delivery speed, support effort, and long-term operational cost.
Application Isolation and Performance Characteristics
CloudHub 2.0 runs applications as containers on Kubernetes, which provides lightweight isolation and efficient resource utilization. This approach supports faster scaling and higher application density compared to virtual machine-based isolation.
CloudHub 1.0 isolates applications at the virtual machine level, which increases resource overhead and limits flexibility. Runtime Fabric also uses container isolation, although performance tuning depends heavily on how teams configure and manage the underlying cluster.
As integration portfolios expand, container-based isolation typically delivers better scalability with fewer operational trade-offs.
Security and Networking Capabilities
CloudHub 2.0 introduces private spaces that give teams fine-grained control over inbound and outbound traffic using platform-managed firewall rules. Static IP management and network segmentation come built in, which simplifies compliance and audit requirements.
CloudHub 1.0 supports inbound firewall controls but does not natively enforce outbound rules. Runtime Fabric supports both inbound and outbound controls, although teams must configure and maintain those controls themselves. Because regulatory requirements continue to tighten, security and networking capabilities often become decisive factors during runtime selection.
MuleSoft Deployment Options Compared
The following sections compare CloudHub 2.0 vs CloudHub 1.0 vs Runtime Fabric across architecture, security, and operational impact, focusing on the areas that most directly affect deployment decisions.
Core Runtime Capabilities
| Capability | CloudHub 2.0 | CloudHub 1.0 | Runtime Fabric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Management Model | Fully managed by MuleSoft | Fully managed by MuleSoft | Customer managed |
| Runtime Architecture | Containers on Kubernetes | Virtual machines | Containers on Kubernetes |
| Application Isolation | Container level | VM level | Pod level |
| High Availability | Built in across AZs | Built in across AZs | Configurable |
| OS Patching and Healing | Platform managed | Platform managed | Customer managed |
Networking and Security Overview
| Capability | CloudHub 2.0 | CloudHub 1.0 | Runtime Fabric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private Networking | Managed private spaces | Anypoint VPC | Customer managed |
| Inbound Firewall | Supported | Supported | Supported |
| Outbound Firewall | Supported | Not supported | Supported |
| Static IP Management | Platform managed | Per app | Customer managed |
| VPN and Transit Gateway | Supported | Supported | Supported |
Operations and Monitoring
Operational efficiency often becomes the deciding factor once teams meet security and architectural requirements. Monitoring, recovery, and deployment automation directly influence support effort, mean time to resolution, and overall platform stability as environments scale.
Operations and Monitoring Comparison
| Capability | CloudHub 2.0 | CloudHub 1.0 | Runtime Fabric |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scaling and Recovery | Fully automated by platform | Automated | Cluster dependent |
| Application Monitoring | Anypoint Monitoring | Anypoint Monitoring | Anypoint Monitoring |
| Log Management | Platform managed with download support | Limited visibility | Manual or external tools |
| CI and Deployment | API and Maven | API, Maven, CLI | API and Maven |
| Backup and Restore | Fully managed | Fully managed | Customer managed |
| Platform Maintenance | MuleSoft managed | MuleSoft managed | Customer managed |
CloudHub 1.0 vs CloudHub 2.0 Migration Overview
Teams migrating from CloudHub 1.0 to CloudHub 2.0 usually follow a clear and structured process. They begin by cataloging APIs, worker sizes, vCore usage, and memory consumption. Next, they map existing workloads to equivalent vCPU allocations in CloudHub 2.0.
Teams then redeploy applications into the new runtime and validate behavior before cutover. Because this approach relies on redeployment rather than redesign, most organizations complete the migration without significant application changes.
Choosing the Right Runtime Platform
CloudHub 2.0 fits most cloud-first organizations that prioritize strong security, predictable scaling, and low operational overhead. Teams gain the benefits of Kubernetes without taking on cluster management responsibilities.
Runtime Fabric remains a strong option for organizations that require full infrastructure control or must support hybrid and on-premise deployment models. CloudHub 1.0 works best for existing workloads approaching retirement rather than new initiatives.
Each option supports a different operating model, so teams should align runtime selection with long-term platform strategy rather than short-term convenience.
Final Perspective
The choice between CloudHub 2.0, CloudHub 1.0, and Runtime Fabric directly affects delivery speed, reliability, and scalability. Teams that understand these differences can align MuleSoft runtime decisions with modernization goals and operational maturity.
A clear deployment strategy today helps organizations avoid costly rework tomorrow while ensuring integration platforms continue to support future growth.