Mule ESB Reviews

I use the solution in my company to deal with use cases, like certain developments in webMethods.io. I had used the tool to deal with API implementation, which was something that was related to integration with the help of APIs. We used to provide APIs to our partners as an organization so that they can use our API and the logic we have written under the APIs, which can help them get the information they want based on the APIs.

From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB.

I have been using Mule ESB for a year.

Considering the developments that I have dealt with Mule ESB, I rate the product's stability a five out of ten since it lacks a lot of components compared to what webMethods.io provides.

Around 100 to 200 people in my company use the product.

I have experience with TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus. I have fifteen years of experience with webMethods.io.

Compared to Mule ESB, you will find that there are fewer coding challenges in webMethods.io.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

A six to seven-member team, including one or two managers, is required to take care of the technical part of the product.

My company had sought help from an integrator to deal with the product's deployment process.

The product offers a community edition that is free of cost. You will not get any support from Mule ESB's team for the tool's community edition. You can get support with the licensed version of Mule ESB.

My company did evaluate other options in the market, considering that we need to start any integration-related discussions by speaking about how complex integration can be for us before choosing the product that can be better for us.

Mule ESB supported our organization with its archiving capabilities, like the way we used to receive support from webMethods.io. My company used to raise tickets with the support team if we faced any issues with the product. If the product's support team were able to resolve our issues with the tool, they would send our company emails with complete solutions to our issues. The support team also used to try to fix our company's issues with the product through share screen options.

I only use the product's API part, and I haven't seen any issues with the product. Owing to the aforementioned reasons, I can't comment on the product's features that I find to be most effective for our company's integration needs. I like the development part of the product. I can't comment on the stability of the product since I used to use it in the environment as it does not move to the cloud. The development was not that easy in Mule ESB compared to webMethods.io, which offers a flow service.

I would recommend webMethods.io to others since I have a good understanding and knowledge of the tool. If people still insist on looking for other products, I need to involve another person who can provide them with the right judgment. Maybe someone who has worked on both of the products simultaneously can be an intelligent person. If you ask my individual opinion, I would go with webMethods.io.

Mule ESB is more inclined towards Java codes. If you are a new user who knows about Java, then Mule ESB will be easy for you to use. With webMethods.io, you can use it even without knowing any coding language. Considering the aforementioned comparison, I feel that webMethods.io is better than Mule ESB.

I rate the overall tool a six out of ten.

I manage a team to handle various integrations using Mule ESB and lead the integration practice. We are a platinum partner of Mule, implementing Mule solutions for our clients.

Mule ESB has provided a centralized control plane for distributed deployment, making it a useful solution.

The most beneficial features of Mule ESB are the control plane and runtime plane. Its centralized control plane has been the most useful for distributed deployments. Mule ESB is also faster and easier to configure than other solutions.

In India, particularly in the banking sector, clients do not prefer cloud solutions due to regulatory and compliance requirements. This creates a challenge for Mule's adaptability as the control systems are on the cloud. 

Having the control plane on-premises would increase adaptability in the financial sector. There are challenges with getting consistent technical support and the cost of licensing is high compared to other solutions.

I have been using Mule ESB for two to three years.

Mule ESB is a stable solution with no significant challenges.

Mule ESB is highly scalable, both horizontally and vertically. It is easily scalable if the platform solution architecture is designed properly.

There are challenges in getting consistent and adequate technical support from Mule. Other partners are more flexible and supportive during development times. The education level of the support team sometimes becomes a challenge.

Neutral

We work with various solutions for different clients, including both API and ESB solutions. We have not implemented Mule extensively in the banking sector due to preference for on-premises solutions.

The initial setup is not very difficult, but it requires a strong hold and good design to adapt and implement the new system effectively.

We are a platinum partner of Mule, implementing their solutions in various organizations. We have a large implementation team.

The ROI is lower compared to other solutions due to high licensing costs.

Pricing is higher compared to other solutions, and the licensing costs are high.

We work with multiple solutions, including webMethods.

I would recommend Mule ESB to others. It's important to be aware of the costs and technical support challenges.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Mule ESB excels in orchestrating workflows and seamlessly integrating with business implementations while keeping technical details hidden. It also offers protocol transformation, converting between different protocols, and supports service exposure to customers while maintaining technical invisibility.

We utilize data transformation capabilities extensively. For complex cases, we employ the SSLi engine, whereas for simpler ones like healthcare or response data, such as EDI 270 or 271. We prefer to use an external XRT engine instead of handling it within the ESB for ease of management. For smaller data transformations, we rely on DSPS.  

One notable drawback is the user experience aspect, particularly in terms of self-service functionality within Mule ESB. It would be beneficial if users could navigate the UI easily without extensive training or learning curves.

I have been using Mule ESB for the last five years.

The solution is generally stable. We ensure proper sizing and memory management, which helps avoid glitches and slowdowns.

Mule ESB is scalable because it can be easily scaled in a cloud deployment and is containerized, making scaling up or down straightforward. This shouldn't be a major concern nowadays.

MuleSoft's customer support is excellent.

Positive

Setting up Mule ESB is relatively easy, although it depends on factors like account categorization and whether you're using Docker or Kubernetes. 

Typically, installation and configuration take around three to four days initially, but subsequent deployments or updates are quicker. One engineer or developer is usually sufficient for deployment, but implementation complexity may vary based on the use case.

The ROI of Mule ESB is greatly influenced by the design and governance of the solution, particularly focusing on reusability and adherence to microservices architecture. Properly designing and implementing these aspects can significantly enhance ROI.

Regarding licensing and pricing, I find it somewhat flexible. They are more flexible with larger customers compared to small and medium ones, as their licensing model depends on ports and other factors. Large customers benefit from more flexibility in implementation and renewal compared to smaller ones.

Working with Mule ESB has taught us the value of experience with different ESBs, making it easier to adapt to new solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

Our clients are using the solution for app-to-app integrations and B2B integrations.

The connectors help to connect with a variety of applications. We have used connectors for Salesforce and Dynamics CRM. The file processing features are useful.

The initial setup is not easy.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable if we use the CloudHub and RTF components. Otherwise, ESB isn't scalable. I work with small, medium, and large businesses.

The support is not great. We've had certain issues in the past. We did not get good support.

Negative

I rate the ease of setup a four to five out of ten. We have to do it properly, especially with the hybrid integration.

The product produces a return on investment. Our build effort has reduced a lot.

The pricing must be improved. We are not able to use a lot of the features because of the price. The customers are moving to other cloud solutions.

We have used TIBCO.

We are integrators. We have very minimal implementations of Mule. The product has good functionalities and capabilities. We recommend the product to our customers. However, we are very careful about our recommendations because of the pricing. Overall, I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

We use this solution to get data.

The stability could be improved.

We have been using this solution for about two years.

The scalability is good, and I rate it a nine out of ten. We have about 20 users using this solution. We do not have plans to increase the number of users, as it depends on the number of use cases we deploy. We have developers, managers and business users using this solution.

Technical support comes with the subscription plan.

We used Oracle ten years ago.

The setup is straightforward. It was a fast deployment and took one week.

The subscription is annual.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My current client is using Oracle Fusion Middleware as their integration platform, and they want us to build a new platform enabling the same functionality using MuleSoft. 

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. 

MuleSoft isn't as mature as some other integration technologies out there like  IBM WebSphere. There's room for growth, and MuleSoft is working toward that. They're already implementing a graph system, which should help organize the APIs in a branched way. It looks more like a relational database now. They're also working on MuleSoft Composer. These are the features that they're working on. 

We've used Mule ESB for four years now.

Mule ESB is stable. 

Mule ESB is scalable.

I haven't personally contacted MuleSoft support. Our team has contacted them during some test scenarios, and they were responsive. I would rate MuleSoft support a solid nine out of 10 based on my limited experience with them. 

I have little experience with Oracle Fusion. It's quite good, but the interface is pretty old-fashioned. I worked with IBM WebSphere as well. That was a big part of another project I worked on, but these are the two technologies I've used.

Currently, I'm working with Oracle Fusion. These solutions require elaborate coding, so you need to be extremely experienced in programming, with the ability to write tons of complex code. It's good to have a solid background in coding, but you shouldn't need to be an expert to work. 

Mule ESB isn't difficult to set up, but there are specific procedures you need to follow. Prerequisites need to be in place to set up the whole environment. It's straightforward once you set up the platform.

After deployment, it doesn't require much maintenance. Most things can be automated, so you don't need someone to always monitor the solution.  Ultimately, it depends on your use case. 

I rate Mule ESB nine out of 10. It works well for me. If you're using Mule ESB for the first time, I recommend taking advantage of the free training. If you go through that training, you'll have a basic understanding of the technology. That's a good starting point.

We use Mule ESB for integrating with third-party vendors. Mule ESB bridge between internal systems and third-party systems. Additionally, we use it for enterprise, web, and APIs services.

The most valuable features of Mule ESB are its ease of use, documentation, ease to adapt to newer security and vulnerabilities, and a lot of help available. Additionally, there is a lot of flexibility, many patches available, and they provide APIs. They are a market standard.

The price of Mule ESB could improve.

I have been using Mule ESB for approximately four years.

Mule ESB is a stable solution.

The scalability of Mule ESB is very good. 

Mule ESB has been in use since 2008. It has been a long-running tool and application and has supported multiple phases.

Mule ESB is easy to set up, configure, and change the configuration. It only takes a couple of days to make any changes the client asks for. The longest project we had using Mule ESB was one week.

We do the implementation and support of Mule ESB. The solution is easily maintained and manageable.

Mule ESB is a costly solution. We pay approximately $80,000 annually for the system. The cost of the number of instances, annual subscription, and cloud hosting services are expensive.

We are thinking about moving away from Mule ESB and using Red Hat because of the high costs of Mule ESB. However, Mule ESB is a good solution.

We propose Mule ESB in terms of solutions for any kind of enterprise service bus application.

I rate Mule ESB a nine out of ten.

ESB is middleware for interacting with multiple heterogeneous systems. Our most critical use case is ensuring the connection is ready, systems are interacting seamlessly, data conversion is happening, and the business logic is being applied. 

The solution is the middleware between the producer and a consumer, and we ensure that the producer is creating the data according to the consumer's requirements. If any orchestration or any transformation is necessary, then MuleSoft performs that. 

I'm not using ESB directly. It is the integration layer, so it's running under the hood. However, the conversion and transformation performance is excellent. Anypoint Enterprise Security is also solid.

I've been working with ESB for two years, but I'm not exposed to the coding or developing aspects. It is part of the integration layer, and I deal with middleware integration testing.

Mule ESB's stability is also good.

We have a four-person DevOps team that performed the initial setup, so I wasn't involved, but I think the deployment would be smooth and straightforward because it's on the cloud.

Nine out of 10. It's one of the better open-source tools for development. It provides seamless support and transition. I give it a high rating because most organizations are using MuleSoft. 

IBM and Oracle are also in the middleware market. MuleSoft is open-source and readily available, so people can meet their needs easily with this tool. We have a REST API with minimal integration and configuration, so we can easily use this solution.