Compare Mule ESB vs. webMethods Integration Server

Mule ESB is ranked 1st in ESB with 7 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 2nd in ESB with 13 reviews. Mule ESB is rated 7.8, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Easy to implement and supports platforms like Windows, Linux, and Mac". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Integration Server and Universal messaging create an efficient development phase, enhance agility". Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server and Oracle Service Bus, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with Mule ESB, IBM Integration Bus and Oracle Service Bus. See our Mule ESB vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Mule ESB vs. webMethods Integration Server and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
372,124 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
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.The architecture based on events has several connectors which allow integration from external and internal applications of the company.Scalability and load balancing.

Read more »

A product with good API and EDI components.We can arrange data caching and look at the solid state. Also, the API gateway is a very good component that can handle relevant cachings and integrations, as well as and also load permitting.It's obvious that the heart of the product lies here. It's comprised of all aspects of ESB (Enterprise Gateway, Adapter, TN, Java) and BPM (task, rules engine).We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces.The main assets are its flow language, debugging, and Broker. Flow language is far better and more flexible for debugging.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.)Application integration, business process integration, and B2B partner integration are valuable. But among these, I feel B2B partner integration is the most valuable. This module integrates two business partners and exchanges data through electronic data interchange messages in the form of specific standards, without any manual process needed.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.

Read more »

Cons
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.The payment system needs improvement.Limitation on external subscribers to listen to the messages on the bus.

Read more »

The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly.We need more dashboards and reporting engines that can provide detailed information for management. In short, we need better analytics.t doesn't represent OOP very well, just a method and proprietary interface called IData.We got the product via a reseller, and the support from the reseller has been less than desirable.Documentation needs tuning. There is a lot of dependency with SoftwareAG. Even with the documentation at hand, you can struggle to implement scenarios without SAG’s help. By contrast, IBM’s documentation is self-explanatory, in my opinion.When migration happens from the one release to an upgraded release from Software AG, many of the existing services are deprecated and developers have to put in effort testing and redeveloping some of the services. It would be better that upgrade releases took care to support the lower-level versions of webMethods.The stability of the various modules of the product suite have been a bit of a concern lately. Though their support team is always easy to reach out to, I would prefer it not come to that.The product needs to be improved in a few ways. First, they need to stabilize the components of the whole platform across versions. Also, they should stop replacing old components with brand new ones and, rather, improve by evolution.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
The various features and components for this solution are no longer free.Plan your licensing model (cloud or on-premises or hybrid) that will allow seamless integration with new partners.

Read more »

It is expensive, but we reached a good agreement with the company. It is still a little bit expensive, but we got a better deal than the previous one.Some of the licensing is "component-ized," which is confusing to new users/customers.Pricing has to be negotiated with the local Software AG representative. SAG can always prepare an appropriate pricing model for every client.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ESB solutions are best for your needs.
372,124 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
1st
out of 24 in ESB
Views
25,969
Comparisons
17,738
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
435
Avg. Rating
8.0
2nd
out of 24 in ESB
Views
15,084
Comparisons
10,473
Reviews
13
Average Words per Review
309
Avg. Rating
8.0
Top Comparisons
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Learn
MuleSoft
Software AG
Overview
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.

The award-winning webMethods Integration Server, our Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), is a complete enterprise application integration solution. It's standards-based so it "speaks" any technology. You can integrate any technology from any vendor: ERP systems, databases, mainframes and legacy apps. SaaS platforms, Web services, JMS messaging systems and packaged apps.

Offer
Learn more about Mule ESB
Learn more about webMethods Integration Server
Sample Customers
Ube, PacificComp, University of Witwatersrand, Justice Systems, CamelotFujitsu, Coca Cola, ING, Credit Suisse, Electrolux, GTA, CosmosDirekt
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company29%
Financial Services Firm14%
Manufacturing Company8%
Comms Service Provider7%
REVIEWERS
Energy/Utilities Company22%
Software R&D Company11%
Comms Service Provider11%
Pharma/Biotech Company11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company34%
Energy/Utilities Company9%
Financial Services Firm9%
Comms Service Provider7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business32%
Midsize Enterprise14%
Large Enterprise54%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise4%
Large Enterprise84%
REVIEWERS
Small Business17%
Large Enterprise83%
Find out what your peers are saying about Mule ESB vs. webMethods Integration Server and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
372,124 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email