MuleSoft Anypoint Platform Reviews

We mostly use it for reprocessing messages in case of failures within asynchronous flows across millions of applications.

We use it for integrating different applications within our infrastructure.

We have a use case involving licenses and applications deployed on our CloudHub. We needed a solution within the MuleSoft ecosystem, and that's why we chose Anypoint MQ. 

Our main purpose for using Anypoint MQ is reprocessing. We have a three-layer architecture where we send messages between layers to ensure message persistence. Since the flow is completely asynchronous, messages can be lost if there's an issue on the backend. Anypoint MQ helps us with reprocessing to prevent this.

We use simple queues and exchanges to route messages to multiple queues. The publish/subscribe model is also helpful.

When it comes to external systems, we need to use APIs. So, it needs some extra effort.

When we are integrating with other applications, readily available connectors make it easy. However, when it comes to external applications, connectivity isn't as straightforward. 

We need to use RESTful APIs to get and push messages. While it's doable, it's not as simple as using the pre-built connectors.

In future releases, Anypoint MQ can increase the message size limit a little bit. We faced issues while working with SAP integrations. SAP can have very large files, and we couldn't handle those within the Anypoint MQ limit.

I have been using it for three years. 

So far, it's meeting our requirements well. There are around 300+ applications using it.

Currently, we have three administrators.

The customer service and support are good. 

I worked on Kafka before, but in this company, Anypoint MQ is the first one.

The advantage for MuleSoft, I see, is it's integrated within the platform. We are trying to have MuleSoft as our primary integration platform, so that meets the use case of the company.

We don't use Anypoint MQ for all the external systems. It's only for the internal communication within MuleSoft applications. It's easy to integrate with MuleSoft products.

It is easy to set it up. Managing queues or exchanges in Anypoint MQ – the usage, is that straightforward as well.

I would recommend using it. If it's for MuleSoft integrations, then definitely a green signal for Anypoint MQ. In the case of external applications, I haven't actually tried it.

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

Mule Anypoint Platform is used for the integration of different services or customer databases with Microsoft solutions.

The most valuable feature of the solution is a huge list of available connectors for a lot of different platforms, which we can use very easily.

It would be better if we had a clearer view of the solution's future releases. Mule Anypoint Platform is migrating to a new JDK, and the old JDK won't be supported within a year. Currently, we do not have a calendar or scheduler about when all the connectors will support the new JDK 17.

I have been using Mule Anypoint Platform for about one year.

Mule Anypoint Platform is a pretty stable solution.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

For the moment, smaller clients would consider choosing MuleSoft as their integration platform. As a rule, the Mule Anypoint Platform is more suitable for middle or large clients.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

MuleSoft provides custom support for every client. You can list your account and have open tickets if you have any problems. We have pretty solid technical support from MuleSoft.

Positive

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight out of ten.

With ready API, the solution can be deployed within a few minutes. If you don't have an API at all, a day will be enough to deploy a very simple but useful API from scratch.

Currently, MuleSoft is moving from the license type to the pay-as-you-go type. The solution's pricing, as per the old approach, is expensive. That is the main reason why we don't have a lot of small-sized customers. With MuleSoft's new approach, we will have new opportunities to integrate small businesses.

The solution's API Designer and API Manager have improved the management of our client's already established APIs. The most valuable features of the solution are Design Center and Runtime Manager. Mule Anypoint Platform provides some basic security approaches, including HTTPS protocol and secure configuration opportunities.

My recommendation to users is to use already described or already propagated best practices that help very much in development. The best advice for developers is to be part of the community. MuleSoft has a great community, including different channels or meetups that could help you a lot in certain cases. When you have some problems, you can address any developers, and they will be ready to talk to you.

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

We are using the solution for building business logic. It's like having a particular private cloud service that we can host on our premises, which is less cost-effective than Microsoft Logic Apps. It provides storage and data integration in a very good manner.

The solution's deployment and proxy processes are very good.

Although the solution's proxy design and process are good, it faces connecting issues because it lacks data integration. You have to filter the data before integrating it.

I have been using Mule Anypoint Platform for around one year.

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform a nine out of ten for stability.

We have to reintegrate it and create another structure on the same file instead of modifying the base one. We have to create other versions also. The solution's scalability is questionable compared to Microsoft Logic Apps.

Around 10 to 20 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform a six or seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support is not so good, but they are trying to provide on-time support. They take around 24 to 48 business hours to provide the solutions.

I rate the solution’s technical support eight and a half out of ten.

Positive

On a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate Mule Anypoint Platform ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution's deployment takes around five to seven minutes maximum.

Firstly, we have to understand how we can integrate with the clients provided, then build the proxies of APIs and deploy from Anypoint Studio to CloudHub. A single person was required to deploy the solution.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing as four or five out of ten.

As it is free of cost and we have to take an enterprise license, there is probably no fee.

For the big layer ones, Mule Anypoint Platform will be better than Microsoft Logic Apps or any other integration platform.

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

The solution is a middleware integration tool. It's a deployment part where you deploy your Mule applications and also use Anypoint Studio.

It's like other integration tools like TIBCO. 

Mule Anypoint Platform has a good feature for batch processes where the internal tool handles everything. You don't have to handle it by yourself. If you have a large amount of data that needs to be processed, then batch processing is a very helpful part of Mule.

The product is quick to deploy and pretty straightforward. 

It can scale. 

The pricing is pretty good. 

The stability could be better. That said, they are also getting stabilized as part of increasing the versions and working on that. Previously, Mule version 3 was, of course, very unstable. However, now, version four is pretty stable now.

There have not been very good resources to help us find solutions to issues. 

I've been using the solution for around two or three years.

The stability is getting better and continues to improve, however, previous versions were quite unstable. 

It's a scalable product. If you create an image, a docker image, then you can scale it automatically. There are no issues.

We have onsite people who can help with the technical support. They have access to Mule support. I have sent a couple of queries to them, and they have contacted Mule to resolve any issues. I personally have not contacted Mule support directly.

I'm familiar with TIBCO. TIBCO has a PW container edition, and they're similar. However, PW is using expert language for internal and external transformation. Mule is using the database transformation. That database transformation, it's a totally new language. If you want to use the Mule, then you should have experience in that first.

Mule is a very good competitor of TIBCO, and Salesforce has acquired Mule. So the market has also grown drastically for Mule. 

We may have also moved based on the price, of which Mule's is better.

If they used XPath, XML query language, instead of DataWeave, it would be ideal. That way, our users don't need to worry about knowing a different language.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

If you're deploying your cloud hub, then it takes time to deploy. That said, if you have that setup on your private crowd, then it takes a couple of seconds or a couple of minutes. It's very fast.

While I'm not sure of the exact cost, it is reasonable, and less than TIBCO.

We are a Mule partner. 

When working with customers, we use both cloud and on-premises deployments. 

I'd recommend Mule to others. It is good in web surveys, REST APIs, and is easy to use. Also, they need to be aware that with Mule, they will have to understand the  DataWeave expression language. If you use DataWeave expression language, then the processing time and performance also increase.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I've used the application heavily and taken projects to production. I know it well. 

Our company is working with a client to create standardization or uniformity across departments and domains. 

Every domain operated on a pilot approach with its own set of standards and technology. There were multiple point form connections and API discoverability for assets. 

We analyzed the environment and found there were issues with transferring master data from SAP to downstream systems. There was an iDOC on the SAP level which contained a batch master for new material and served as a point-to-point connector for downstream systems such as SAP to Salesforce, Informatica, or other systems. 

We recommended that material master data should be implemented in an observable or pub/sub approach. Upgrades or changes to the material master should be generated from the CP side and sent to the solution for dissemination to downstream systems. This eliminates bad jobs and is a real-time approach to point-to-point connections. 

There were also many APIs built in different technologies throughout the organization, with no standard API management capabilities or governance to enforce policies, security, or best practices. We recommended Universal API Management for API registrations because it allows any type of technology or platform and serves as a single point for discoverability, enforced policies, governance, and traffic. 

The exchange and API management features are the best in the market. 

The solution handles EDI-based integrations very well. 

The platform's data integration tools need improvement on the processing side. We move large amounts of data from databases to other source systems and the solution does not handle this well. 

It is difficult to become a partner with the solution because their standards are very high. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable and depends on your deployment model. With Cloud Orbit, it is very easy to scale or configure auto scaling. On-premises or private clouds require a bit of extra care but are still easy to do. 

Technical support for partners and customers is good and the community forum for developers is strong.

I rate support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The setup is very simple. 

The solution is the priciest in the market which is an issue for some clients. It is intended for use with enterprise or mid-level companies who have available resources. 

When comparing products, the solution wins every time for integration capabilities and API management but falls short for pricing. Demographics play an important role because clients in Asia cannot afford the solution but price is not an issue for clients in the US, Australia, Canada and Europe. The size of a company is also important as the solution is intended for the enterprise or mid-level range. 

The solution is more focused on EDI-based integrations and has a partner that offers an onboarding management tool because many legacy companies are migrating from Sterling Integrator. Perhaps the solution should be marketed more for EDI integrations. 

There are more valid tools for data integration such as Informatica, SSI, and Talend.

The solution is great for new developers who want to learn about integrations because it includes free or self-payer courses.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We transfer data between systems. We are to save the data to make the communication between systems synchronous. We use Anypoint MQ for making the communication synchronous. The source integration component will place the data into Anypoint MQ, and the target company will take it from there.

Because our customers are moving from on-premise to cloud, it's mostly costs that have been saved and nothing else.

The most valuable feature is the messaging system.

Anypoint MQ is not a pure messaging product. There are so many solutions like this, but this is not as mature as those products. The other MQ products have the capability of reprocessing and maintaining the persistence of the data. They can handle large volumes and large messages, but Anypoint MQ doesn't have those capabilities.

It can only handle a maximum size of 10 megabytes. The other MQ products have a larger capacity. IBM MQ can handle 100 megabytes of data or even solid gigabytes. This doesn't have that capability.

This solution has a lot of gaps. It's not a pure MQ product. We have sort of exposed this product with different protocols like TCP. Also, it has to evaluate these capabilities compared to the other market products.

I have been using this solution for four years. The solution is used on an iPaaS cloud provided by MuleSoft.

The stability of Anypoint is not as mature as other MQ products.

The scalability is under the hood. It is AWS, and it is reliable. It's not user-based. It is automation-based and IT products-based. We have deployed five or six individuals using Anypoint MQ.

This is not a pure provider. It is just a tactical solution cloud. In the long run, we want to go back to square one and use other MQ products like ActiveMQ or IBM MQ because of Anypoint's limitations. For instance, it can't handle more than 10 megabytes of data, and it can't hold more than 50 persistent messages.

Deployment and maintenance are automated. There is an initial automation that is required.

Technical support is good.

We previously used a stable solution. We moved to this product thinking that the cost would be reduced, but things are not working as expected. We plan to go back to using the old solution.

Initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment is a cakewalk.

You don't need an explicit skill set for deployment. Anyone can do it.

I can't give you a straightforward answer because sometimes it depends on the usage. If you're going to have fewer than 5 million messages, it is free of cost. If you're going to have more than 5 million messages, you will be charged $100 per month.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10. 

We thought that this was a pure demo product. We moved from IBM to MuleSoft thinking that it would work like IBM, but that's not what happened.

My advice is to try to evaluate the product beforehand and see whether it fits your needs and requirements. Check if it covers all of your use cases. Otherwise, it won't work.

There are a lot of MQ products on the market, but this is suitable for small scale customers and not for large scale.

We haven't switched solutions yet, but the plan is to switch because of this product's limitations. It doesn't cover all the use cases.

The solution enables searching, publishing, consumption, and subscription of APIs via a portal.

The product is robust. It is Java-based. We use the little resources we have to get things done. The tool’s API management capabilities are excellent. It is a rock-solid product. The tool has a lot of dashboards. We can monitor performance and scalability.

The product is expensive.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

We can have multiple instances and scale them dynamically. The solution also has load-balancing capabilities. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. We can just define our APIs and start building them. The tool is mostly deployed on the cloud. It can be deployed on public, private, and hybrid clouds. The deployment does not take much time. After the testing, if everything is fine, the tool can be deployed.

Boomi is suitable for small and medium-sized companies. Mule Anypoint Platform is suitable for small and medium businesses, but it is expensive.

I am a partner of Salesforce. I tried to understand why Boomi is stronger in the market than Mule Anypoint Platform. However, I could not find any disadvantages of Mule Anypoint Platform. The product has been in the market for a long time.

It has also introduced AI features. It can take issues and divert them based on dynamic data. ROI is not the only factor we consider. We must also consider scalability, smooth and hassle-free use, time to production, and time taken for testing. We can monitor things in real-time. I recommend the solution to enterprises. It is a good solution to migrate from TIBCO.

The tool has an API manager with a dedicated console to control the policies and everything else. Everything is integrated. We can call relevant data on the go. Nothing is hard-coded. If we want to get data from a particular source, we can automatically get it based on the AI input.

Overall, I rate the tool an eight to nine out of ten.

The tool's use cases are mainly for enterprise-level integrations that require transformations and major publish-subscribe scenarios in which data needs to be published to multiple systems in different formats.

I rate the solution's ease of learning a nine out of ten. It has good documentation and self-learning videos. It promotes usability and provides an end-to-end integration solution with the Salesforce ecosystem

The tool helps with order management and automates the enterprise's orchestration, invoice creation, product maintenance, and product life cycle. The API manager feature helps us configure, secure, and call APIs. 

The tool requires programming language. 

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform's stability as nine out of ten.

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform's scalability as nine out of ten. 

The solution's deployment is 10-20 percent longer.

We have a team to deploy the tool. 

The tool's pricing is cheaper than other RPAs' since it is execution-based. Other RPAs charge based on subscriptions.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend Anypoint MQ to customers using MuleSoft as an integration platform. Anypoint MQ is a pure messaging product. The solution is scalable, and its performance is quite good.

The solution's licensing model is expensive and could be improved.

I've recently started using Anypoint MQ.

The solution’s technical support is good, but they should work on their response time.

Neutral

Anypoint MQ is easy to configure. However, it is not that easy when compared to Apache Kafka.

If customers using open-source integration or any springboard integrations need JMS, they must carefully evaluate the product. I would recommend Anypoint MQ only for MuleSoft customers. I won't recommend the solution to customers using a different integration platform because there's a cost associated with the product.

Overall, I rate Anypoint MQ an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for migration and integration.

There are issues with dead-letter queues.

I have been using Anypoint MQ for one year.

The product is stable so far.

The customer service is not good enough in Hong Kong.

We chose Anypoint MQ because it is a top-rated product in the market.

For the basic setup, we use some local message queues and integrate them with the message queue. It took one year to complete the setup.

We used another tool because it was complicated, and we had to hire a third party to build the architecture. The setup is quite complicated.

Anypoint MQ has stability issues. I have experienced data loss and inconsistent behaviour. The data isn't always pushed to the SQL database. When I put a message in the SQL queue, the data should be static, but it's not. Additionally, clicking a message in Anypoint MQ can sometimes trigger database loss. This instability becomes particularly noticeable when starting or restarting the server.

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