We performed a comparison between Mule ESB and webMethods Integration Server 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 offers multiple deployment options."
"This tool has exceptional API management and integration connectors in addition to multiple out of the box connectors."
"The solution has a good graphical interface."
"We can use Java expressions anywhere in the flow."
"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."
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"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 solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"It integrates well with various servers."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"I feel comfortable using this product with its ease of building interfaces for developers. This is a better integration tool for integrating with various applications like Oracle, Salesforce, mainframes, etc. It works fine in the integration of legacy software as well."
"Given that you have one integration API in place, it takes very minimal effort to scale it to any other application that might want to use the same. Its flow-based development environment is a breeze and makes it really easy to re-use most of the existing components and build up a new API."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"The solution has a very comprehensive and versatile set of connectors. I've been able to utilize it for multiple, different mechanisms. We do a lot of SaaS and we do have IoT devices and the solution is comprehensive in those areas."
"The product supports various types of digital documents, including XMLs and EDI."
"The MFT component of webMethods, for example, is easy to set up and convenient to use. It handles files very efficiently and it is easy to automate tasks with complex schedules. Monitoring is centralized to MWS which can be used to monitor other products as well (Trading Networks, BPM, MFT, etc.)"
"From the product perspective, it was sometimes hard to manage the dependencies. When we had to add dependencies on a couple of different packages, it was sometimes confusing. It was hard to update them with Anypoint Studio, as well as with MuleSoft. There were challenges with that. So, that's one of the areas that could be improved."
"The solution's setup needs to be a bit more straightforward and its support needs to respond faster."
"We would like the ability to use our own code. This would allow us to develop customizations with ease. Additionally, it would be nice to have more analytics or insights on the exchanged information between databases."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvement in the generator for the DataWeave language so that it's a little more graphic."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"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."
"It would be much more beneficial if the solution included AI and business process management."
"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."
"wM SAP Adapter User Guide - Example, like Message Broker setup was unclear, leading to issues during Testing and we had refer the internet forums to understand that there is a Message Broker Cleanup utility and that needs to be setup as well."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"This product is for larger companies. Compared to TIBCO I think webMethods is better in terms of ease of use and support."
"The initial setup of the webMethods Integration Server is not easy but it gets easier once you know it. It is tiresome but not difficult."
"The product must add more compatible connectors."
"The learning curve is a little steep at first."
"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 45 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Mule ESB is rated 8.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, Red Hat Fuse and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, TIBCO BusinessWorks, Boomi AtomSphere Integration and Oracle Service Bus. See our Mule ESB vs. webMethods Integration Server 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.