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."The platform's most valuable feature is data transformation."
"The ability to compliment out-of-the-box integration components with small custom code."
"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."
"Scalability and load balancing."
"Mule Expression Language"
"The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"The architecture based on events has several connectors which allow integration from external and internal applications of the company."
"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."
"I like that it's user-friendly. Compared to other ESBs, I find it easier to use. I like it better than other ESBs. I like the connectors, which make calling the APIs through the routers easier."
"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"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."
"Error logging is not very user-friendly. It requires the error logging to be configured in many different places."
"Fiorano ESB's logging feature and data availability need improvement."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."
"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."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"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."
"We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing."
"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."
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, Red Hat Fuse and JBoss ESB. 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.