We performed a comparison between MuleSoft Composer and Zapier based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Data Integration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product is easy to use. You don't need programming skills to use it."
"The advantage of using MuleSoft as part as the Salesforce ecosystem is that anything new they build is guaranteed to work with the new features that are coming from the other side."
"The prebuilt connectors have saved our customers a lot of time and money."
"The solution is a SaaS and does not require a complex setup."
"Zapier’s most valuable feature is its ability to interconnect applications or devices."
"What's most valuable in Zapier is its simplicity, seamlessness, and smooth plug-in, so you won't need to build code for every action. I'm not a developer, but I can use Zapier."
"Zapier handles everything under the sun that you would think you need in automation. It is the most mature integration platform and service on the market."
"The product's most valuable feature is automation."
"We can connect Zapier with Zoho CRM for lead generation. I like the tool's drag and drop feature."
"Zapier luckily has a wide range of integrations, I would say."
"Zapier is a really good tool for connecting multiple different platforms and data sources. For example, with Quickbase, I can easily integrate data from other sources like AWS or task-tracking platforms such as ClickUp or Asana."
"This solution could be improved by offering more integrations with other platforms."
"MuleSoft Composer needs to improve its interface and scalability."
"The technical support team's response time must be improved."
"After mapping them out, and they'd worked for a while, I've had Zapier fail."
"Zapier could be a little faster, but that might not be possible. I would encourage Zapier to make more API endpoints for each application"
"I think that this solution should have more apps connected to it."
"My biggest concern with Zapier would be their pricing strategy."
"The user interface for Zapier could be improved. It also takes some time to sync the data between different environments."
"Zapier needs to improve in the same way most RPA solutions should, such as Robocorp, Make, or UiPath. They are not good at helping you find the connections that you need for the problem that you have. For example, if need something on Instagram. I'm going to have to do research for hours to be able to find the components or the app, which is going to do what I need it to do. It makes it difficult to use the system when you don't know what to use."
"Being able to share Zaps and organize them with teammates would allow sharing and refining scenarios and even combining steps that require different people's credentials."
"Some recent changes to the solution have made it bulky and not as intuitive to use as it previously was."
MuleSoft Composer is ranked 13th in Cloud Data Integration with 3 reviews while Zapier is ranked 10th in Cloud Data Integration with 40 reviews. MuleSoft Composer is rated 7.6, while Zapier is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of MuleSoft Composer writes "The prebuilt connectors save a lot of time and money, but the customer support and price must be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zapier writes "A tool for automation purposes requiring an easy initial setup while offering a very helpful technical support team ". MuleSoft Composer is most compared with Mule Anypoint Platform, Workato, Celigo Integration Platform, Microsoft Azure Logic Apps and Jitterbit Harmony , whereas Zapier is most compared with AWS Glue, Alteryx Designer, Tray.io, Coefficient and Coupler.io. See our MuleSoft Composer vs. Zapier report.
See our list of best Cloud Data Integration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Data Integration 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.