Compare IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Mule ESB

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Mule ESB and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern.Performance-wise, this solution is really good.It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format.

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker Pros »

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 the Salesforce integration.The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs.Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis.The most powerful feature is DataWeave, which is a powerful language where data can be transformed from one form into another.

More Mule ESB Pros »

Cons
Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved.The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight.The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is.

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker Cons »

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.The Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight.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.We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing.I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution.

More Mule ESB Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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.IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost.

More IBM WebSphere Message Broker Pricing and Cost Advice »

The various features and components for this solution are no longer free.

More Mule ESB Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ESB solutions are best for your needs.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
9th
out of 25 in ESB
Views
2,865
Comparisons
2,458
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
499
Avg. Rating
8.0
2nd
out of 25 in ESB
Views
24,162
Comparisons
16,540
Reviews
6
Average Words per Review
504
Avg. Rating
7.3
Popular Comparisons
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Also Known As
WebSphere Message Broker
Learn
IBM
MuleSoft
Overview
WebSphere Message Broker is an enterprise service bus (ESB) providing connectivity and universal data transformation for service-oriented architecture (SOA) and non-SOA environments. It allows businesses of any size to eliminate point-to-point connections and batch processing regardless of platform, protocol or data format.For companies looking to modernize and unlock the value of existing on-premises systems and applications, an enterprise service bus (ESB) architecture serves as a critical foundation layer for SOA. When deployed as an ESB, the Mule runtime engine of Anypoint Platform combines the power of data and application integration across legacy systems and SaaS applications, with a seamless path to the other capabilities of Anypoint Platform and the full power of API-led connectivity.
Offer
Learn more about IBM WebSphere Message Broker
Learn more about Mule ESB
Sample Customers
WestJet, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Sharp Corporation, Michelin TireUbe, PacificComp, University of Witwatersrand, Justice Systems, Camelot
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company42%
Comms Service Provider14%
Insurance Company11%
Media Company6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company44%
Comms Service Provider11%
Retailer6%
Media Company5%
Company Size
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business31%
Midsize Enterprise14%
Large Enterprise55%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise4%
Large Enterprise87%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Mule ESB and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 9th in ESB with 3 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in ESB with 6 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.6, while Mule ESB is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "Mature, reliable, and performance-wise it is good". 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 Oracle SOA Suite, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus and Red Hat Fuse. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Mule ESB report. /' We've helped 431,275 professionals make an informed decision, / with our validated product reviews, independent rankings, and peer opinions. /.promo-video-link / = link_to('See how it works.', '#', id: 'gitb-video-pane-open', / data: { :'video-link' => 'https://www.youtube.com/embed/RVO4FHQxGVM', :'video-width' => '640', :'video-height' => '360' }) /br

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.