We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Mule ESB based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has good integration."
"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."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature is the Salesforce integration."
"The connectors help to connect with a variety of applications."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"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."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."
"We can use Java expressions anywhere in the flow."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"The solution can add container engines such as docker."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"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."
"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."
"Limitation on external subscribers to listen to the messages on the bus."
"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."
"The stability could be improved."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
"It would be much more beneficial if the solution included AI and business process management."
"We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing."
"The price of Mule ESB could improve."
"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."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 45 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, Red Hat Fuse and SEEBURGER Business Integration Suite. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.
