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 solution addresses all of our middleware needs in respect of transformation, parsing, security and stability; everything really."
"I have found the inbound and outbound adapter confirmations valuable."
"Web interface, REST API for viewing services, admin, stats, and deployment are premium features, which makes IIB stand among its competition."
"The most valuable feature is that it is clear and easy to learn."
"I am into microservices using Java Spring Boot, but if we are using legacy systems, IBM Integration Bus is very good for them. They have their own computational logic called EC12, their own proprietary language. You can do any kind of complex logic and can implement other ESVs that I have seen."
"I have found IBM Integration Bus is very useful because it can integrate multiple backend applications."
"The Cloud Pak for Integration is a useful feature."
"It is one of the most stable products which I have seen in the market."
"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."
"The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"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 product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"I like that Mule ESB provides fast and good technical support."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"Mule ESB has a user-friendly design, and everything is in one place. The API and architecture are popular right now. Also, MuleSoft has a large and supportive online community."
"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."
"The price could be better. It would also be better if they simplified the code."
"The interface could be more user-friendly."
"The product does not provide API management."
"This product uses the PVU (Processor Value Unit) license model from IBM, and it is something that should be improved."
"We have come across many customer complaints about the excessive time it takes for IBM to provide customer and technical support."
"Today, the IBM business rule engine, the DataPower is outside the Enterprise Service Bus. It's sold as a different feature or application. If it could be integrated, then it's able to handle a lot more of what we are doing now rather than just have a stateless ESB that you can't do much on, and a set of normal business rules."
"IBM Integration Bus could improve by having a more lightweight installation. Additionally, automation could improve."
"The Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight."
"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."
"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."
"It should have some amount of logging."
"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."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"The initial setup is not easy."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 20 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 15 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "A reliable solution with excellent support infrastructure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Offers a free-of-cost edition, but it needs to pose fewer coding challenges". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with IBM WebSphere Message Broker, Oracle Service Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with Oracle Service Bus, Red Hat Fuse, webMethods Integration Server, Oracle SOA Suite and IBM DataPower Gateway. See our IBM Integration Bus vs. Mule ESB report.
See our list of best ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) vendors.
We monitor all ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) 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.