Mule ESB Reviews

We use this solution to integrate with other software applications.

Now, we are running almost 50 integration APIs, and will have over 1 million billable transactions.

The solution can be deployed on cloud or on-premises. I'm using version 4.2.

It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications.

Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason.

I have been using this solution for over nine years.

The stability is great compared to IBM.

The scalability is amazing. You can increase the horizontal perspective or the increase the vertical perspective. It depends on your business needs.

We have a dedicated support person from the MuleSoft tech support.

Development is very easy. Initial setup took two days. We needed to open a firewall, download the necessary things, clean the server, file storage, network storage, and we needed to work on the installation of the servers.

For deployment, we had one person for admin and one person for development.

I would rate this solution seven out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution for those who want to use it. It will depend on the customer's needs and what they want to use it for.

We use this solution when we have integrations and need to connect to SAP or to some Q mechanisms like ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ. The applications we develop are for administrators. We are customers of Mule ESB. 

The HTTP, SAP and RabbitMQ connectors that we use are very easy to connect. The language for writing the transformations is also very simple. This is a useful solution. The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily. 

The main issue we currently have is that the version we are using will not be supported for much longer and we'll have to migrate to the newer version. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

We use this solution every day and it is stable.

The solution is scalable although we don't need to scale for now. 

The support is pretty good. We raise a ticket when we need something and the response time is good. 

Positive

We had some initial hiccups following deployment, but since then it's been good. We deployed in-house. 

Licensing costs are relatively expensive. 

The main difference I noticed between Mule and Red Hat Fuse was the licensing cost. Mule ESB was a more expensive solution. I haven't worked much on other ESBs but when I compare it with Spring Boot or other similar technologies, Mule is better in that it doesn't require much code writing.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

When I worked for the Sprint telephone company, we used the solution as a bridge between their legacy systems and the front end. We developed a lot of the functionality, for example, logging into users' accounts and activating cell phones.

The solution improved the company by modernizing the way they offer services and improving the user experience.

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.

I've been using Mule ESB since 2016, so about six years.

The stability of the solution is great. In fact, the stability is another improvement that the solution brought to the company.

The solution has great scalability.

I previously used an eCommerce platform called Intershop, but it's not really an ESB. Intershop allows for the development of the whole eCommerce system, from the back end to the front end. I switched to Mule due to the needs of a new project that I was starting because it acts as a bridge between legacy systems and front-end systems.

It was kind of straightforward. We had to study their legacy systems and then make some kind of mapping between those legacy systems and the RESTful APIs handled by Mule.

We used a consultant directly from MuleSoft for deployment. It took about an hour or two to deploy the solution, plus time for testing. 

To those looking into implementing this solution, I would say that you will enjoy the experience of using Mule.

I would rate this solution as a ten 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.

We were using it for EDI. We were using it for integration between RFID portals and our ERP system. We were also using it for the integration of customer data between the CRM and the ERP systems. I am no longer using it because I changed the company.

We were using the cloud version.

When we bought the solution, it was an in-the-cloud or PaaS solution. Because of that, I didn't have to take care of the infrastructure, which was a big plus.

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. 

Its licensing or pricing model should be improved. If I compare it to other solutions, it is very expensive for small and medium businesses.

Their support should also be improved. Some of the tickets took a long time to be resolved, and I had to escalate to my account manager.

I used this solution for maybe five years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. It is also easily scalable.

I had about two developers internally, and they were taking care of its deployment and maintenance. In terms of the end users, it probably impacted hundreds or thousands of employees.

It was okay. There is room for improvement. I had some tickets that were taking a long time to be resolved, and I had to escalate to my account manager to push them through. I would rate them a three out of five.

In the latest implementation, we decided to start small with a very simple project that we had, which was customer integration between our CRM and ERP solutions. We started with a very small API. It was a small integration with only about three APIs, and that was it. We had success with it, and we ran it. 

We did it in partnership with a third-party consultant, and then we took it from there. Our experience was very good.

Pretty good. I would rate it a four out of five.

Its licensing was yearly. There were minor fees additionally, but those were related to VPN's high availability. When you purchase MuleSoft, you purchase it because it is highly available. So, you have to make sure that your VPN can support that. That's pretty much it. The other tools that we picked were things to deploy the solution to build the CI/CD pipeline using MuleSoft. We picked the one that wasn't free. So, we had to pay for it, but it was a minor cost.

They have a package to get you started. I would advise using at least a partner at the very beginning so that they can show you the best practices within MuleSoft and different layers of APIs. Sometimes, there are challenges around security and things like that. So, my advice is to get external help to get your developers started on it. Once they're taught the best practices, your intermediate to senior developers will pick it fairly quickly.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

At the moment, we are using MuleSoft 4, for which I am a certified developer. We use version 4.3. 

We can do very fast development of the orchestrations of MuleSoft. The design patents which we use for integration patents are also a nice feature. 

The solution also offers multiple deployment options. I like the endpoint time manager and the access policies. 

In respect of the UI or the interface, a concept such as that offered by Microgateway would be preferable. We basically use ESB for the gateways. Yet, sometimes when we make use of on-premises standard applications, we require a Microgateway or sidecar proxy products or sidecar proxy-type gateways. This should be addressed. 

A Microgateway type of application should be available for lending support to MuleSoft. When it comes to standalone applications, it would be better if a sidecar proxy were available, rather than the security models being implemented inside the application. The sidecar proxies make things very simple in respect of microservices.

It would be great to see implementing security modules as a feature. 

I have been working with MuleSoft for the past seven years. 

Our current requirements are not great. The version we currently use, 4.3, is much more stable at present. It has good stability. 

The scalability is good. It varies with the request I receive or the application size. It can be done with much ease. 

Technical support is more in the purview of developers. 

The installation time depends on the product being deployed and the size of the application. What we are using at the moment would not require installation of more than an hour. We usually would receive a zip file that we would insert into the server, at which point we could start with the deployment. We have a command for the installation of the licenses and even this depends on the type of job involved. That is all. I would put the installation time at no more than 35 to 40 minutes. 

I have done the installation on my own many times. I have this product on my personal laptop, as well and usually install it on my small machines. 

As with our other applications, MuleSoft is on-premises, but we make use of a hybrid strategy involving the use of an endpoint cloud and agent. While our initial deployment was on-premises, our control plane is on endpoint in the cloud. 

I am a MuleSoft developer and am working for a client. The company which I work for is a partner with MuleSoft.

I would recommend MuleSoft to others. 

While what we are using for our current project is more than sufficient, it would be nice to see Microgateway added as a feature. 

I rate the solution as an eight out of ten. 

We are using the on-premises version of this solution.

The most valuable feature is DataWeave. It allows for the transformation of data, for example to JSON or from JSON. It's very powerful.

There are also many connectors available, which is nice.

We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing. In our case, we are working on-premise. We are not using the cloud solution, so we have MMC, which is not enough in a high transaction environment.

This is a very stable solution. It doesn't require much memory or other resources. Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis. Even when you need to make changes, they are easy to do. 

The scalability is easy. It can be done horizontally or vertically. We are scaling horizontally because we don't have any space left in the server. If we need to expand the number of nodes then it depends upon the licensing.

Our development team has three people, and I am the lead.

The community forums for this solution have been very helpful. You find plenty of information there. In the past three or four years, I have only raised three issues. They were related to the VM, and not the product itself, so I did not need product assistance.

We did not use another solution prior to this one. We started with the open source solution, version 3.1.0, and we implemented all of the services. We then paid for a licensed version.

The initial setup is pretty easy. We have multiple applications bounded by that domain, for resource sharing, so it was easy.

I set up the solution myself.

The calculation of ROI is difficult because we work in terms of providing support to other applications. There are many departments involved, and we cannot calculate our support in terms of money.

Before moving to the licensed version of this solution, we had a meeting to discuss the IBM Oracle web method. After looking at everything, including our code and the capability that Oracle has, we decided to continue with Mule ESB because of the ease in moving from the older, open source version, to the newer one. All we had to do is download it and continue with our work.

My advice to others who are implementing this solution is to first become acquainted with the forums. There are always reports coming out about the software, and new technologies. The next thing is that I would suggest always starting with the latest version. Older versions are available, but you should install the most recent one.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I use Mule ESB to exchange data between four or five systems at one time. We exchange government organizations' data.

Mule ESB is a very easy-to-use and user-friendly solution.

There are some features on the commercial version of the solution that would be great if they were on the community version. Additionally, if they added more authorization features it would be helpful.

I have been using Mule ESB for approximately two years.

The stability of Mule ESB is very good.

Mule ESB is a highly scalable solution.

I am the only one using Mule ESB in my organization and I use it daily.

The community version of Mule ESB does not have support. I  find information online if I need it.

I was previously using Talend ESB but it's more complex than Mule ESB to use. The commercial versions have more features than Talend ESB.

Mule ESB was very easy to set up. I did three months of testing Mule ESB before I went into production.

I did the implementation of Mule ESB myself. There is no maintenance required for Mule ESB.

The price of the Mule ESB commercial version is expensive. However, they have a free community version.

I recommend this solution to others. If you have any data exchanges with other systems, Mule ESB is very useful and easy to use, even if it's the commercial version.

I rate Mule ESB a nine out of ten.