We performed a comparison between Mule ESB and Oracle Service Bus 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."What Mule provides out-of-box is a sufficient product."
"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."
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"I like that Mule ESB provides fast and good technical support."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"The solution has a good graphical interface."
"I'm not using ESB directly. It is the integration layer, so it's running under the hood. However, the conversion and transformation performance is excellent. Anypoint Enterprise Security is also solid."
"With Oracle Service Bus, we can connect with different types of systems. Another feature I like the most is the security feature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that you can connect with different applications."
"Monitoring feature that allows tracking of the web's UI development."
"The ability to master the process in one location."
"Service Bus is good at routing the transformation."
"Supports multiple protocol technologies and web services."
"It was very good at supporting high transactions, up to 300 transactions per second."
"Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters."
"It needs more samples. Also, the dependency on Maven should be removed."
"Mule ESB is more into the latest REST APIs, not much into the SOAP web services. Developing is all about web services and not easy with Mule."
"It's not easy to troubleshoot and we still can't make it work."
"Lacking some connectors that could be included."
"The solution isn't as stable as we'd like it to be. There are some ongoing issues and therefore Mule has to provide frequent patches. Mule's core IP should be more stable overall."
"From the product perspective, it was sometimes hard to manage the dependencies. When we had to add dependencies on a couple of different packages, it was sometimes confusing. It was hard to update them with Anypoint Studio, as well as with MuleSoft. There were challenges with that. So, that's one of the areas that could be improved."
"There are some features on the commercial version of the solution that would be great if they were on the community version. Additionally, if they added more authorization features it would be helpful."
"The solution's setup needs to be a bit more straightforward and its support needs to respond faster."
"There is significant room for improvement in the monitoring capabilities."
"An area for improvement in Oracle Service Bus is the roadmap for its product launch. Currently, it's unclear, so Oracle should develop a roadmap for version 12c, so people can see what's coming out of that version of Oracle Service Bus. Cloud hosting is an additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Oracle Service Bus."
"The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production."
"What needs improvement in Oracle Service Bus is the connectivity between adapters such as the Salesforce adapter and database adapters. The limited number of adapters compatible with Oracle Service Bus makes you want to switch to a different solution."
"We have faced a problem with the heap memory side, but that is stable now."
"Lacks sufficient cloud compatibility."
"The support for GraphQL needs to be improved, and the response time for global support could be faster."
"The inconvenient part about working with this product is that it's very heavy, requiring a lot of people and a lot of resources."
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews while Oracle Service Bus is ranked 5th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 25 reviews. Mule ESB is rated 8.0, while Oracle Service Bus is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Service Bus writes "Enables us to do a lot of aggregation and routing, but API response can be a problem if the payload is heavy". Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server, Red Hat Fuse and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas Oracle Service Bus is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Red Hat Fuse, WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus. See our Mule ESB vs. Oracle Service Bus 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.
