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 most valuable features of the IBM Integration Bus are the flexibility to easily integrate with other solutions, such as SAP or any other vendors."
"The integration with other tools is excellent. It integrates well with batch issues."
"The solution offers good performance and is stable."
"Having the solution come from IBM you know you are receiving a product of quality in components and in the services, it is very good."
"Facilitates communication between parties and legacy systems."
"IBM Integration Bus is flexible, easy to use, and easy to configure."
"I consider the solution to be one of the most stable in the market."
"IBM Integration Bus's best feature is integration."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Mule ESB are its ease of use, documentation, ease to adapt to newer security and vulnerabilities, and a lot of help available. Additionally, there is a lot of flexibility, many patches available, and they provide APIs. They are a market standard."
"I like that Mule ESB provides fast and good technical support."
"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."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"The most valuable feature is the Salesforce integration."
"The solution offers multiple deployment options."
"Mule Expression Language"
"IBM doesn't really have a very strong community surrounding the product. Most of its direct competitors are open source solutions, and those have an excellent and well-developed community around the tech to help users navigate the ins and outs of the product. IBM is lacking in this area."
"There are a couple of things I want improved, but I think they have already touched upon all those things in the most recent version. I'm not using the most recent version—I use a version older than the most recent—but I'm sure that if I looked into and explored it, I would see more support on the CI/CD and more support for unit testing automation. I've read that they released all these things in the new version of App Connect. Once I explore the new version of this tool, I'll probably have a better idea of suggested improvements."
"IBM Integration Bus could improve by having a more lightweight installation. Additionally, automation could improve."
"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."
"I would like to see more metered rest and API support. IBM is already working on it on Version 11, but it still needs improvement."
"Session management can sometimes hand forcing server reboots."
"The cloud deployment of the IBM Integration Bus should be made easier."
"IBM Integration Bus could be easier to manage, but this is true of all vendors. It doesn't always do what it says on the box."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"The current version will not be supported for much longer."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."
"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, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, Oracle Service Bus, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, Red Hat Fuse, webMethods Integration Server 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.