We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus and Mule ESB based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Both solutions receive high marks from reviewers. IBM Integration Bus has a slight advantage over Mule ESB due to its flexibility and user-friendly interface.
"The system's stability is the most valuable feature."
"Seamlessly integrates your different applications."
"The most valuable features of the IBM Integration Bus are flexibility. It's also an alternative for integrating it with other projects, which we are not ready at this time to do, such as switching to tunnels. The tunnels would be used with other partners to make sure everything is secured."
"Content is easily infiltrated in the eclipse infrastructure."
"I consider the solution to be one of the most stable in the market."
"I found all features valuable. There are a lot of connectors."
"The multi-approach and the multi-capabilities are valuable."
"It is a stable solution."
"Easy connectivity and easy integration."
"The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"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."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"The solution improved my company by modernizing the way we offer services and improving the user experience."
"Scalability and load balancing."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"Migrating to this solution is complex and it would be helpful if they had a way to convert existing integrations."
"Some of the runtime properties need to be improved because if you want to load certificates as sales security, you have to restart the server."
"It would be beneficial for it to function more as an iPaaS, with the runtime available in the cloud, potentially on platforms like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud."
"The solution is too expensive for smaller companies."
"It needs improvement in terms of technical support as well as in terms of integration of data mining. I am not convinced about many things in this solution, such as the conversion of the DFDL or copybook file, which is the conversion from a text file to XML. It is very complex. They should also provide more information about this solution in the IBM Knowledge Center. I can get a lot of information from the IBM Knowledge Center about DataStage, but I don't get that much information about IBM Integration Bus. There is hardly any information even on the internet and various channels such as YouTube. They can provide good step-by-step documentation based on a company's requirements. It would be really helpful. My company is mainly looking for data mining and communicating with multiple servers. IBM Integration Bus is good for communicating with multiple servers, but it needs improvement for XML conversion and data mining. We have a lot of old systems that use XML."
"Its licensing or subscription model should be improved for more flexible adoption. There should also be more ease of use."
"The interface could be more user-friendly."
"The product could be improved by including more resources on SQL."
"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"MuleSoft isn't as mature as some other integration technologies out there like IBM WebSphere. There's room for growth, and MuleSoft is working toward that."
"One area that could be improved is the way that policies are propagated when APIs are moved from one environment to another. It's an issue, but when you develop and test the rest APIs in a lower environment and need to move them, there's a propagation process. This process moves certain aspects of the APIs, like the basic features. But when we move them, the policies don't always move with them. The policies should be able to move so we don't have to redo them manually. There are some APIs we use, but it's a bit tedious."
"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."
"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."
"Lacking some connectors that could be included."
"It should have some amount of logging."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 65 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server, Red Hat Fuse and IBM DataPower Gateway. See our IBM Integration Bus 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.