We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker, Mule ESB, and Oracle Service Bus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, MuleSoft, Software AG and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB).
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"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."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"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."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"I am impressed with the product's connectors and scalability."
"It was pretty fast to develop APIs on this platform, which is something I liked about it. So, the time to value was pretty good."
"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."
"Mule Expression Language"
"The most powerful feature is DataWeave, which is a powerful language where data can be transformed from one form into another."
"The solution offers multiple deployment options."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"The communication between applications is already defined, which means that you don't have to redefine your service infrastructure at the lower level."
"It was very good at supporting high transactions, up to 300 transactions per second."
"The interface is fine and the solution is quite robust."
"The routing and aggregation are the most valuable features. It's split and join."
"It is stable."
"What I found most valuable in Oracle Service Bus is its time to market. It's excellent."
"We've been pleased with the level of technical support."
"Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters."
"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."
"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."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"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."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"There are some features on the commercial version of the solution that would be great if they were on the community version. Additionally, if they added more authorization features it would be helpful."
"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."
"It should have some amount of logging."
"We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing."
"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."
"The current version will not be supported for much longer."
"The Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight."
"It's very complex and hard to learn. There's a steep learning curve."
"It would be ideal if they could optimize it a bit."
"The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production."
"If they can containerize this, that would be nice. If they can provide docker images and offer support for those containers, that would be great."
"Security features can be improved to better protect the server."
"The connectivity with the solution is an area that needs to be improved. On occasion, requests are lost due to losing connectivity."
"The initial setup is likely complex for many organizations."
"We have faced a problem with the heap memory side, but that is stable now."
