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 ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution improved my company by modernizing the way we offer services and improving the user experience."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"The setup is straightforward."
"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."
"Easy connectivity and easy integration."
"Most of our use cases are for Salesforce. So, the connectors for Salesforce have been really helpful. They've made development two times faster."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"It has a good integration server, designer, and a very good API portal."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"What I found most valuable in webMethods Integration Server is that it's a strong ESB. It also has strong API modules and portals."
"From a user perspective, the feature which I like the most about Integration Server is its designer."
"High throughput and excellent scalability."
"It is a very stable product."
"One valuable feature is that it is event-driven, so when new data is available on the source it can be quickly processed and displayed. Integration is definitely another useful feature, and B2B is one area where webMethods has its own unique thing going, whereby we can do monitoring of transactions, monitoring of client onboarding, and so on."
"The stability is good."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
"The price of Mule ESB could improve."
"The solution's setup needs to be a bit more straightforward and its support needs to respond faster."
"It's not easy to troubleshoot and we still can't make it work."
"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."
"The stability could be improved."
"It should have some amount of logging."
"Community editions need more attention."
"The orchestration is not as good as it should be."
"Business monitoring (BAM) needs improvement because the analytics and prediction module very often has performance problems."
"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."
"It would be nice if they had a change management system offering. We built our own deployer application because the one built into webMethods couldn't enforce change management rules. Integration into a change management system, along with the version control system, would be a good offering; it's something that they're lacking."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"For code version control, you need to use some external software."
"Upgrades are complex. They typically take about five months from start to finish. There are many packages that plug into webMethods Integration Server, which is the central point for a vast majority of the transactions at my organization. Anytime we are upgrading that, there are complexities within each component that we must understand. That makes any upgrade very cumbersome and complicated. That has been my experience at this company. Because there are many different business units that we are touching, there are so many different components that we are touching. The amount of READMEs that you have to go through takes some time."
"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."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 45 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) 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, Red Hat Fuse, Oracle SOA Suite and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with webMethods.io Integration, IBM Integration Bus, TIBCO BusinessWorks, Oracle Service Bus and Azure Data Factory. See our Mule ESB vs. webMethods Integration Server report.
See our list of best ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) vendors.
We monitor all ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) 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.