Shubhashis PandaSolution Designer at a tech services company
Ravi GundaSenior Architect at a tech services company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"The solution has good integration."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."
"The most valuable feature is the Salesforce integration."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"Easy connectivity and easy integration."
"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"What Mule provides out-of-box is a sufficient product."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."
"Mule ESB is more into the latest REST APIs, not much into the SOAP web services. Developing is all about web services and not easy with Mule."
"The Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight."
"The solution isn't as stable as we'd like it to be. There are some ongoing issues and therefore Mule has to provide frequent patches. Mule's core IP should be more stable overall."
"Lacking some connectors that could be included."
"It's not easy to troubleshoot and we still can't make it work."
"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."
"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."
"This product is more expensive than competing products."
"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."
"The various features and components for this solution are no longer free."
"The licensing is yearly, and there are additional fees for services."
"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."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 7th in ESB with 5 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in ESB with 9 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Mule ESB is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Easy to implement and supports platforms like Windows, Linux, and Mac". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and IBM WebSphere Application Server, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, IBM Integration Bus, Red Hat Fuse, Oracle Service Bus and IBM Sterling B2B Integration Services. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Mule ESB report.
See our list of best ESB vendors.
We monitor all 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.