We performed a comparison between Fiorano ESB and Mule ESB 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."One of the most valuable features is the scalability. Whenever it's required, we can add more servers and scale. We can actually use specific servers for specific stuff. Unlike in other solutions, now we can implement one server purely dedicated to core-banking-related API. This is very important when it comes to the PCI DSS certification."
"The platform's most valuable feature is data transformation."
"The ability to compliment out-of-the-box integration components with small custom code."
"Scalability and load balancing."
"The setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot."
"The architecture based on events has several connectors which allow integration from external and internal applications of the company."
"The most valuable feature is the Salesforce integration."
"For complex cases, we employ the SSLi engine, whereas for simpler ones like healthcare or response data, such as EDI 270 or 271. We prefer to use an external XRT engine instead of handling it within the ESB for ease of management."
"This tool has exceptional API management and integration connectors in addition to multiple out of the box connectors."
"Error logging is not very user-friendly. It requires the error logging to be configured in many different places."
"Fiorano ESB could be improved by becoming more user-friendly. Most of the pages and generated reports on API usage are already there, but they could be more user-friendly. There could be more selections added to generate reports. Overall, though, Fiorano suits all our needs and has good functionality."
"Fiorano ESB's logging feature and data availability need improvement."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvement in the generator for the DataWeave language so that it's a little more graphic."
"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."
"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."
"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."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"We would like the ability to use our own code. This would allow us to develop customizations with ease. Additionally, it would be nice to have more analytics or insights on the exchanged information between databases."
"The stability could be improved."
Fiorano ESB is ranked 10th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 5 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews. Fiorano ESB is rated 9.0, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Fiorano ESB writes "Scalable and easy to maintain". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". Fiorano ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus and Oracle Service Bus, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator. See our Fiorano ESB vs. Mule ESB 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.