We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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."The solution has good integration."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The most powerful feature is DataWeave, which is a powerful language where data can be transformed from one form into another."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"It is easily deployable and manageable. It has microservices-based architecture, which means that you can deploy the solution based on your needs, and you can manage the solution very easily."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"Most of our use cases are for Salesforce. So, the connectors for Salesforce have been really helpful. They've made development two times faster."
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"Scalability and load balancing."
"Mule Expression Language"
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."
"Community editions need more attention."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"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."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"In an upcoming release, I would like to see more additional concept for exception handling, batch processing, and increased integration with other application."
"The stability could be improved."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and JBoss ESB. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.