We performed a comparison between Mule Anypoint Platform and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Business-to-Business Middleware solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's easy to develop APIs."
"The most valuable feature is their integrations and very good API management."
"The tool is very capable and offers a high performance. The tool supports batch processing and ETL processing."
"Mule Anypoint Platform is our preferred platform for integration."
"This is the easiest and best tool available."
"The product’s ability to seamlessly translate protocols is great."
"The integration potential is excellent."
"The solution's market place for different kinds of integration platforms is the most valuable feature."
"It used to take half an hour to move one file from one location to another. Now, it takes 10 minutes."
"The tool's performance doesn't get affected by transformation loads. You can write any number of rules, filtering criteria, transformations, etc."
"SEEBURGER BIS can reconcile documentation, like our accounts payable and statements within the system. If you are manually doing it, then it is really time consuming with a lot of errors. Whereas, SEEBURGER BIS allows for a lot of basic level programming within the documentation, filtering, and sorting out VLOOKUP. It lets us get two database tables from two different systems, then merge them based on the logic that we provide. So, it is a very helpful product."
"It has enabled digital business processes. It's the connection between our ERP system and the rest of the company. We were able to automate processing invoices digitally like an inbound invoice and FastPay payments."
"When orders come in they go into our ERP system directly, so there is integration there."
"It's the reliability. And the message tracking is quite good, where we can go in and see if we have an issue."
"Among the most important [features] are the BIC 6 Converter and the communication protocols, which have the newer security features for certificates and encryption."
"Having the SEEBURGER consulting team perform the installation alleviates a lot of headaches and ensures a stable system."
"It doesn't work well when you try using it for the processing layer."
"One area we'd like to see improvement in is the error logging and troubleshooting process."
"The runtime management and connectors could use some work and are vulnerable to breakage after upgrades."
"The price could be improved."
"The solution is very expensive. They need to work on the pricing."
"The terms of use and how it's priced has become very difficult to manage, which is forcing us to look for alternatives already - and we haven't even been using it for that long just yet."
"It should give better control over account management."
"It has different types of subscriptions. For platinum or lower subscriptions, there are not too many things that can be done. We don't see many features. They should release a basic version that has logging and monitoring features. These features should come with Mule Anypoint Platform for free instead of making customers pay separately for these features. Its dashboard can be improved to have a lot of charts so that it is easy to visualize information. The utilization part can be improved. The dashboard is good currently, but it can be better. Other solutions like Elastic have a good dashboard, and they allow you to administer the product from the UI. Currently, for RTF, there is a different dashboard or utility. It would be good to include the same utility in the cloud solution. It would be good if there is a centralized repository that includes the links to the information about various troubleshooting issues. The documentation is there currently, and it is good, but the troubleshooting information is too scattered. We have to go to different links to find troubleshooting information. This kind of centralized repository would be helpful for new customers who are implementing this solution. It will be helpful to see different kinds of issues that can occur."
"We wanted to use API. We were told that in 6.52 we could use API management. Later on, we found that API management wasn't that completely integrated into the 6.52 solution, and if you wanted to have the whole API suite you might have to go to 6.7, the latest one."
"I find the solution quite confusing to use, especially when looking at the tree structure."
"The integration is not so excellent. While I'm not saying there is a problem, there is no pattern. When we start a new project, we have to work with new people and processes every time. The technical side of their system is very good, but their change process is not repeatable. It needs to be rebuilt each time."
"They have their own private cloud. That's the reason we did not go ahead with managing everything by ourselves or moving into the cloud. They said that they're going to be doing it within the next two years, having access to Azure and AWS. That would be something we would like to see."
"In the BIS, if I want to have some API functionalities, that is a separate tool. The integration between the API tool and the BIS is not that straightforward. If they were to combine these tools and give us one suite, that would be helpful. Today I have a lot of partners onboard. I have something like 50,000 partners doing API transactions. If I want to introduce a new tool for API management, I have to do a lot of workarounds. But if it were integrated well within the existing suite, it could be straightforward for me."
"In some of the other tools out there in the market, you can create one service and use that service without creating a copy. That kind of capability currently doesn't exist in this solution."
"Their traditional model is a vendor flow. We are looking to do a customer-based flow, which which require significant development from SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite (BIS). We are working with them to do this using their WebEDI. It is a brand new area for them, but it could be an option in the future."
"The solution's documentation is not up to the mark and needs to be improved."
More SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite Pricing and Cost Advice →
Mule Anypoint Platform is ranked 2nd in Business-to-Business Middleware with 41 reviews while SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is ranked 5th in Business-to-Business Middleware with 37 reviews. Mule Anypoint Platform is rated 8.2, while SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Mule Anypoint Platform writes "Robust, reliable, and stable, ensuring high availability for critical integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite writes "Gives us the flexibility to hook up to systems using any protocol out there". Mule Anypoint Platform is most compared with MuleSoft Composer, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps, Oracle Integration Cloud Service, SAP Process Orchestration and SAP Cloud Platform, whereas SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite is most compared with SAP Cloud Platform, IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services, Mule ESB, IBM B2B Integrator and webMethods Integration Server. See our Mule Anypoint Platform vs. SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite report.
See our list of best Business-to-Business Middleware vendors and best Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) vendors.
We monitor all Business-to-Business Middleware 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.