MuleSoft Anypoint Platform Reviews

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. 

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're using Anypoint MQ for messaging, in different types: from SAP to third party systems, global third party systems, etc. There's a hundred of them.

It's extremely expensive to change things in Anypoint MQ, e.g. we have to go through either Accenture or IBM. IBM will do the changes, but the actual change we ask for costs huge amounts of money. I'm not sure why that is, or whether that's just a contract, but they always complain about multiple changes, regression testing, etc. It sounds like it's a very long winded task just to make a simple change. This is an area for improvement for Anypoint MQ.

Another problem we have with Anypoint MQ is that some of our end systems cannot cope with the throughput. If we put too many messages down to it, then there's a delay to send those messages onto the system that can't take them in as fast, and this means that the queue blows. We have either a 40 gigabyte or 40 megabyte queue space, but if we send 7,000 messages which need to be combined and sent out, the queue blows, because it just can't manage that throughput because the output is so slow. With the memory, we don't have a big enough queue to cope, so there's that problem.

If there was a way around that problem, we could send it. What we need to do is to be able to send 50,000 messages an hour or more, which we can do SAP to SAP, but we haven't found a solution on how to cope with sending it to Anypoint MQ because it blows up, so that's the big problem we have.

What we'd like to see in the next release of Anypoint MQ is for the issue of slow output of messages to be solved. Even if we wrote into disc, e.g. the disc space is cheap, so if you could write the messages to disc and then just feed them out and when the queue is caught up with itself, that would solve our problems. It means we could send MuleSoft all the messages in one go, and then it could drip feed them out.

The additional feature we'd like to see in Anypoint MQ is to be able to write the message queue to disc, to allow for ample queueing of messages, because currently, the output to a particular system is slow.

We've been dealing with Anypoint MQ for 20 years now.

Anypoint MQ has been stable, and it has not caused us any problems.

Anypoint MQ is a scalable solution.

We have not contacted the technical support team of Anypoint MQ, because we have our own internal third parties to deal with any issue that could arise from the solution.

What we've noticed in Anypoint MQ is that it's expensive to change things.

We evaluated Apache Kafka.

I thought we had a problem with our queuing software, and it turned out that it's not the software itself, it's the third party. We're passing the messages on to the third party, and they can only receive it at a certain rate, so we had to drop the Anypoint MQ software down, but it's not actually the MQ software, rather it's the actual third party application that was causing the problem.

As I'm working on the SAP side, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to discuss about the features I like most about the solution.

My advice to others looking into implementing the solution is to first look at what you're trying to achieve, because you've got Anypoint MQ as your queueing software, and then you've got the Apache Kafka software as well, and they do different things. I didn't realize this when I started looking, because I was looking at Kafka thinking that would be the answer to our problem, but it wasn't, because it looks great if you want instantaneous messaging and loads of bandwidth, but you need to do the interpretation of messages.

I'd say, look at what you want it for, because Anypoint MQ seems to be as good as the other options, to be fair. I'd also tell them about the problem I've had with it, and that's not just going to be a problem with Anypoint MQ alone, because I think other systems will have the same problem, e.g. the queuing problem. I'll tell others to really, really look at the application. Anypoint MQ seems to be a standard application, and it's acceptable.

My overall impression of Anypoint MQ in terms of rating it, is seven out of ten, but that's just based on my feeling. I don't have any quantifiable reasons on why I'm giving it that score.

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 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.

The solution is used as a middle environment as we have our own database settings and PostgreSQL database. If an API requires some information then they need to go through Mule Anypoint. We are also trying to implement our own DataGraph. 

In our company, we have some other ETL tools but comparatively, MuleSoft is much more compatible in many other ways for data transformation. MuleSoft can handle a lot of different types of data. So even if something is not available, there are some workarounds, and this is professionally advantageous. 

I have a lot of resources as a developer and I don't want to always ask Mule for help. There are a lot of online resources which can be referred to easily even as a beginner, which is a positive.

Most of the people who work here are long-term employees who are much more versatile in German, than English, and MuleSoft supports the local languages. That was one of the positives and was why Mulesoft was considered beyond its scalability and other functions. Whenever we need some support in our local language, we get it easily. They also have an office in Germany and if a person is unable to contact them by phone, they can go to the office in person.

The initial setup should be made easy and the documentation should have some guidance. 

I have been using Mule Anypoint Platform for two years. 

The solution's stability has increased over time. 

It is a scalable solution. Presently, five to ten people use the solution. 

The technical support team is quick with their responses and are prompt in providing a solution. 

The initial setup is complex as there is no documentation that can guide you. There are professionals to help but they charge a lot.

I would recommend others to use the solution because it is easy to use. If they want to learn, there is a free course available on the website for developers. At the same time, even if you are not able to get some information readily available, there are a lot of other resources that are available online. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten as they are still improving. 

We use Mule Anypoint Platform in our company for API integration, API orchestration, and other related things.

Mule Anypoint Platform's valuable features are its flexibility in terms of deployment and its SaaS capabilities. One of the solution's features is its connectors, which allow for any specific integrations within any other package software. Mule provides a lot of connectors for integration purposes.

I think Mule Anypoint Platform is one of the market leaders, so our customers prefer it, which is why I also use it.

The solution's user interface has shortcomings and can be made much better. Mule Anypoint Platform can be made more user-friendly so that people with lesser technical knowledge can understand the product. Mule Anypoint Platform can get too complex for non-technical people.

I have been working as a system integrator using Mule Anypoint Platform for two to three years.

It is a scalable solution.

My company caters to the needs of medium-sized businesses.

Mule's technical support is good. I rate the technical support between eight and nine out of ten.

Positive

Regarding Mule Anypoint Platform's installation, I can say that since we use the SaaS platform, we didn't face any issues with the installation of SaaS modules.

Mule Anypoint Platform is a SaaS system. The platform is available, so you just configure it and don't need to deploy anything. You just have to configure whether you want high availability, DR, or anything else. Otherwise, there is nothing much to deploy since it all falls on the SaaS capabilities.

We have only three engineers required for the configuration and adaptation of the product.

Price-wise, it is a good product since it is reasonably priced.

The product's maintenance part is easy and requires only one person.

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