IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Mule ESB comparison

"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."

"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."

"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."

"The solution has good integration."

"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."

"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."

"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."

"Straightforward development and deployment."

"Most of our use cases are for Salesforce. So, the connectors for Salesforce have been really helpful. They've made development two times faster."

"I like that Mule ESB provides fast and good technical support."

"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."

"It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications."

"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."

"This tool has exceptional API management and integration connectors in addition to multiple out of the box connectors."

"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."

"It is currently a weighty product."

"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."

"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

"The solution can add container engines such as docker."

"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."

"We would like the ability to use our own code. This would allow us to develop customizations with ease. Additionally, it would be nice to have more analytics or insights on the exchanged information between databases."

"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."

"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."

"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."

"It would be beneficial if users could navigate the UI easily without extensive training or learning curves."

"We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing."

"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."

"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."

"The solution is expensive."

"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."

"The solution is expensive."

"This product is cheaper than some offered by other vendors, although there is a problem because you have to pay for some third-party adapters."

"This is expensive. In my next project, we had to go to other vendor."

"The licensing is yearly, and there are additional fees for services."

"Mule ESB is an expensive solution."

"The price of the Mule ESB commercial version is expensive. However, they have a free community version."

"You will not get any support from Mule ESB's team for the tool's community edition...You can get support with the licensed version of Mule ESB."

"Plan your licensing model (cloud or on-premises or hybrid) that will allow seamless integration with new partners."

"Regarding licensing and pricing, I find it somewhat flexible. They are more flexible with larger customers compared to small and medium ones, as their licensing model depends on ports and other factors. Large customers benefit from more flexibility in implementation and renewal compared to smaller ones."