MuleSoft API Manager Reviews

The most valuable feature of Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is the gateway that is provided.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager can improve some of the gateway features. We could use some more customization in creating rules. A lot of the policies are related to the APIs rather than the client. If I want to apply a policy based on a client that is not available.

The dashboards are configurable, but they are not readily available with the cloud. You can see a dashboard where you can check on what is deployed. For example, a complete view of what it is, such as how much code it takes. It's there in bits and pieces, we can configure it with our credentials, but it is not readily available. If they could add an enhanced visualizer it would be beneficial.

I have been using Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager for approximately one year.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is stable.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager does not have out-of-the-box scalability and it is not something that you can receive readily. It is something you have to configure based on the requirements of the customer.

I rate the support from Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager a three out of five.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is on the cloud and there is no installation.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is a complete API-led connectivity gateway and some of the other tools we have tried would not be appropriate for our needs, such as Apigee.

I rate Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager a seven out of ten.

You can find SLA there. You can do the security level that you need. You can also do any authentication, authorization, implementation, etc.

You can create it yourself and publish it. While publishing, if there is a unique ID generated by that, it will be implemented there while creating the application. While deploying to the cloud, the Mule runtime is internally created and embedded in the API Manager.

All of these features are available in the cloud, and you can configure it. It is of great benefit to the customer.

MuleSoft has given the API solution a 3-tiered architecture. This means that there are multiple channels available in one application. The usability is very high.

MuleSoft has advanced features but is slower.

I've been working with this solution since 2017.

It is highly stable, and that's why MuleSoft is booming. Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager internally uses the AWS availability zone. When one availability zone is down, then it will automatically route to another availability zone. You will not find this kind of stability on-premises because you can have server issues. However, on the cloud it's very stable and very reliable.

MuleSoft has horizontal and vertical scaling capabilities.

The technical support is good, but it is a new solution, so it will take time to mature. I would give technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. You may have some issues when you deploy it for the first time if the team is new, but once you do it, the next time it will not take much time.

You just need half a day or one day of training, and any team member can implement the solution.

Maintenance wise, it doesn't require a lot because it's on the cloud. You do have to monitor some things on your end, but other maintenance issues are taken care of by MuleSoft.

You will need to look at your requirements and choose the solution.

Message Broker, ACE only has ESB and does not have the gateway. You will have to buy additional software, but MuleSoft has embedded both API and ESB. This is called method-oriented architecture.

In terms of the speed and process, I prefer Message Broker, ACE technology IIB. In my current project, we are processing 25 MB to 50 MB files, and Message Broker is able to do it. However, with MuleSoft it would take more time. MuleSoft has advanced features but is slower.

I would rate Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager at ten on a scale from one to ten.

I am offering consulting services to help clients build the API. I am not involved in the deployment or anything behind the API.

We are using the Anypoint component for the integration layer which is not specific to the API management.

Its best feature is that its plugins are somewhat unique in the market. We have budgets, prime membership, and pre-plugins available in the marketplace that we can use immediately.

I believe there is an issue with MuleSoft, specifically the studio, it is very slow.

The performance could be faster. Their studio performance is very slow, and it requires a lot of memory which should be improved. 

It is not as compatible as other options available.

You would like to improve studio performance in the next release.

I have been working with Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager for three years.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is very stable.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is a scalable product.

We have 300 users in our company, and we use approximately 10,000,000 hits per day.

We will definitely increase our usage. It should be standard as a requirement model. It's not specific. We have a capability team, and the capability team gives us access to that information. We have a plan, but we cannot provide specific data numbers because of time constraints.

The technical support is very good. One of the best things about MuleSoft is its community. They provide support if you raise an issue in the MuleSoft community they will respond. Anyone who is available will respond and resolve your query as soon as possible.

I was not involved in the installation.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

Definitely, I will recommend Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager over IBM App Connect.

I would rate Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager a seven out of ten.

I use Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager for application integration.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager's most valuable aspect is it has plenty of features.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager could improve the monitoring because it is very poor quality and not user-friendly. It is not as good as other solutions on the market.

I have been using Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager for approximately two years.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager has been stable and my usage. However, there have been some issues with SMTP connectors.

The scalability of Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is good.

We have approximately 80 people using the solution. They are architects and developers. We have plans to increase the usage of the solution if the depends require it.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager technical support is good, they are responsive.

I rate the support from Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager a five out of five.

I have previously used different API gateway solutions, such as Akana API Management and SOA Software.

The initial setup of the Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is simple. The whole process did not take a lot of time.

We did the implementation of Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager in-house.

The price of Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is very high.

Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is a very good solution.

I rate Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager a nine out of ten.

This solution was primarily used for data retrieval.

Anypoint API Manager's most valuable feature is its connectors.

In the next release, Mulesoft should make it easier for people who don't have the native connectors to build their own rather than using the APA from the power platform or outlet.

The stability is pretty good, I haven't seen any issues with it.

I didn't see any issues while using the APIs and connectors, which means it's scalable.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward because we purchased support from Mulesoft, so their engineers took care of it. However, using it within the user-integrated cloud was a bit tricky.

I would give Anypoint API Manager a rating of nine out of ten.

The entire offering and suite of tools that this solution provides have been very valuable. We are able to manage APIs on runtime on a cloud basis which has been very useful. 

The log management for this solution needs improvement. We would also like to have the capability to monitor usage metrics within the system. Currently, it is available, but only on a case-to-case basis. We would like to have an admin page where we could view and track all our usage metrics. 

We have been using this solution for more than six years. 

The scalability of this solution depends on how you configure it. When you design the implementation of the solution, you need to factor in multiple sets of requirements and configure the size of the APIs accordingly.

There is the standard SLA defined depending on the type of subscription or license. The support we have received has been good. 

Positive

I have previously used Oracle. 

The initial setup can be a bit challenging but usage of the solution after that is straightforward. 

When it comes to determining price, the pre-sales team interacts with the customer's primary integration team and the price is negotiated based on the specific usage of the system. 

If your organization wants to build reusable functionality using APIs and you are a cloud-first organization, I would recommend MuleSoft. I would not recommend this solution for tactical integrations but rather for strategic investments. You need to have a long-term vision as to what you are building, where you are building, and how best you can reuse what you build across the enterprise.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for API management.

Their gateway is great. They have a pay manager gateway which I find very interesting. 

We like their API manager.

Their RTF, runtime fabric, is very useful.

The stability overall has been pretty great.

We didn't have any issues with the initial setup.

Technical support has been very helpful.

Their ability to observe is good.

Some items are not ideal. For example, they should for sales management, they need better performance in the core processing.

The IO blocking isn't ideal.

We find that the enterprise level is lacking scalability.

We have some hundred Linux boxes and 400 or so APIs and for scaling, we are facing challenges. However, we haven't yet compared it to other ESBs, and therefore it's possible that all ESBs are limited in the same way.

They're in the process of evolving right now. There are many changes on the horizon that may prove to be interesting. For example, we've implemented CI/CD and now it's my understanding that the graph scale's also coming. 

I've been using the solution for four years.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is lacking. We're not sure if it's just this solution or ESBs in general, however, we've had trouble scaling as we need to.

We have about 100 users on the solution currently. They are mostly tech leads, senior developers, and architects.

Technical support has been great. If you raise a ticket, then they respond on the basis of the severity of the issue, the criticality of the issue. They attend to the call really quickly. We've been happy with the level of support on offer.

The initial setup is very straightforward. We didn't have any issues at all. It's simple and easy to implement and not overly complex.

We have 30 to 50 people that comprise a support team that can help handle any maintenance issues. 

We did have assistance from MuleSoft support.

I don't have any visibility on the licensing and therefore cannot speak to the exact cost of the product.

We are working with a platinum tier and have an unlimited core. It's my understanding is that there are no additional costs beyond the licensing fee itself. 

We've gone live with MuleSoft and I have been comparing it with TIBCO or Dell and IBM products. If it's threat management that can be done concurrently across platforms, maybe it can be performed better. However, I've heard TIBCO is not evolving at this time.

I was exploring other options for my own knowledge and understanding as I am looking for a job change. People not only use Mulesoft, and companies want to have knowledge in two to three platforms. I'm just comparing Mulesoft with IBM ESB, Oracle, and a few other products. 

We're just a customer and an end-user.

Previously, a Mulesoft community edition was available. We started using Mulesoft's community version. We were exploring some ESB in our organization four years back. We started using MuleSoft as we've got Salesforce. At that time, Mulesoft was not yet acquired by Salesforce and that's why we went with the community edition. It was good. It was free. Then, slowly, we purchased some courses and Mulesoft was more connected to Salesforce. Now also Salesforce is there and AWS is there and it's more well-known and integrated. We thought it would help us due to its growth.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's a product that's still evolving. 

We primarily use the solution for our APIs. We are moving from monoliths to API architecture and we have approximately 10,000 to 12,000 APIs across banks, which are hosted on this product. It also provides us a gateway service to ingress the traffic as well as whole policy management where stuff is taken care of from the PC Any Point. It also has some API-level runtime policy management, which we use.

The gateway service to ingress the traffic is great. 

The whole policy management has been great. 

It has some API-level runtime policy management, which is useful for us.

The solution is extremely mature.

You can scale the solution.

The only drawback is that, due to the fact that we are going into a completely API structured way of working, it is very tightly coupled with the vendor solutions. For example, the run times. What happens is when you have to do a change or you have to do anything, you have to rip off all the APIs and rebuild it.

If you see the features, they are really good in one sense, however, they have a certain drawback when you get into the operational way of working. We definitely need APIs to have policies at runtime. They provide a feature where there's a lot of policy on authorizations, however, the only problem is the runtime. 

When the runtime upgrades, we have to basically publish a new build pack and then do all the rebundling. When we were 2000, 3000 APIs, it was okay. However, when you start going up to 10,000 to 12,000 APIs, it was too much.

The whole cost is an issue. Deploying to production is not a very easy job in that bank as we go through the whole change process. The whole tight coupling of the product is a problem. 

As a bank, we didn't want to take any risk of getting so much tightly coupled with any vendor product. It should be replaceable as required. That's the only reason we are now changing products.

The upgrade is a very messy process. Mule 3.X to 4 or 4.2 requires you have to rewrite the APIs. It is not just upgrading the build pack with a runtime. That is something that gets us scared a lot. They came back and told us when we move to four run times we had to upgrade. You had to rewrite the APIs. The APIs cannot just work in a straightforward manner. There is a lot of change and we have approximately 5% Mule APIs and then the rest are boot APIs. While, now, that means 5,000 APIs need rewiring, after two years, we might have 20,000 APIs. They should have a proper way of having backward compatibility.

The initial setup is complex. 

If they are going with that control pane in a cloud, which is a very good feature and it is a managed service, they should give it 24/7, 100% uptime. They should also spin it across multiple regions. Currently, they are just the US and the EU is coming up. However, they should add, for example, China or Asia, et cetera. We operate in more than nearly 40 countries. Every country has a lot of its own governance and compliance and regulatory checks or some, where we cannot host to the cloud.

We have used the solution for three and a half to four years at this point.

We have a massive set up and definitely, there are sometimes a few issues, which come here and there, however, we manage to build a resiliency inside that.

We have scaled from a few hundred APIs to 10,000 APIs. Just on the retail part, the gateway service runs more than 125 million transactions per day. It's a huge setup we have. 

The only drawback back again is that their gateways are pretty heavy on hardware. Therefore, we spend a lot of money on the hardware. If you compare with Kong, Kong actually can just replace everything with two VMs. We have 500 VMs running for us as gateways. It has scalability, however, it will cost you, which is a problem.

Technical support has been helpful. There were also people embedded in my team.

We are migrating from Mule to Kong now. We just have signed the contracts and we are basically getting the thing set up. It is a big project and it is going to take maybe another three to four months to roll it out to non-production and maybe another five months into production as we need to get everything in compliance and clear.

The initial setup, if you go back three or three and a half years, definitely, for us, was complex. As a bank, we run through a lot of securities. Since then, they have matured the process. They worked with us, to do some upgrades. Kong also will have to do a few things for us, once we migrate. Currently, we are already finding some issues, which Kong is trying to help us and fix it. However, Mule took a bit of time to set up. If we were to do it now, it would be easy. 

They have come up with API management and cloud hub, which is the manual service. We have not used it much, however, there are some use cases from a different part of the bank that tried it out. It's a good option as you get rid of the whole operational management side of the whole control pane. The control pane we are running is a PC 1.7.3 or something, which is old and coming up on the end of support.

The cloud hub may solve the problem of the control pane, even though they have some issues with the maintenance windows and stuff. Due to the fact that the policies are cast in the control pane, and run times can struggle, if the control pane goes down or needs maintenance because we need a hundred percent of availability in some way or other, it needs to be resilient also. The maintenance windows can cause trouble for us in banking.

We originally signed a three-year licensing agreement.

There's room for improvement on the licensing. They could do better.

I'm not sure I would recommend the solution to everyone. The approach we have taken is, we have moved out completely from the Mule APIs to Spring Boot APIs. We will decouple the whole vendor locking and stuff. However, it depends on the use case for each company. There is no good and bad product. These guys are both very mature products. Depending upon the use case, you will have to consider how you will handle scaling, for example, or other challenges. 

Everything has a drawback and plus and minus, so pros and cons. Even Kong is a new product. It may be a good performer, and very lightweight, with low infrastructure needs. We don't know. 

Our cyber is very strong. Like us, people will have to evaluate, depending upon their use cases, all the pros and cons of security and see how it fits. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use it for integration with backend applications. We use it to connect to applications like SAP databases, or Infomatica Collibra or MongoDB, and some other backend applications.

One good thing about MuleSoft, is that they have a lot of connectors to those backend applications. We don't really need to write code to be able to connect to a database or to connect with SAP. You just need credentials and the connectivity details. Most of the development of what we do is just drag and drop. They're able to connect with applications using standard connectors that are provided by ESB, by MuleSoft.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The solution has been very stable.

Technical support has been great.

If you want to see the full-fledged functionality of their analytics engine, you have to pay separately for that. It's not the case with, for example, Apigee. That is out of the box. For MuleSoft, then you need to specifically pay an additional licensing fee be able to get the benefits of the analytics.

It would be ideal if they had full-fledged features out of the box versus having to pay for them separately. 

I have five years of experience using this product.

The product offers a very stable platform. We've had a couple of issues, however, it's a stable platform overall. Due to the API, there may be some buggy codes. We have not had any major issues, and, if we do, the technical support is very responsive to our queries.  

Technical support has been excellent. Whenever we've had to contend with a bug, they have been very helpful at assisting us. We're very satisfied with their level of service. They are extremely responsive and very knowledgeable.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's much more straightforward, that, for example, Apigee, which is more difficult to execute.

The product added a lot of value to the organization. Usually, all integrations are point to point. For example, if Informatica needs the information from SAP or SAP from PeopleSoft,  they have point to point connection. Due to the fact that we are able to handle connectivity using MuleSoft, it's actually reusable for applications. Therefore, once we connect to SAP, we don't need to deal with that connectivity again. Any other application that needs to connect to SAP reuses the same API that we have developed on this platform. They don't really need to develop a new set of API.

The solution makes users pay integration fees.

You need to pay extra to get proper analytics. It's a separate fee.

MuleSoft has both ESB as well as the API management platform. 

We are implementors.

We are one major version behind. We are not using the latest version of the solution.

We deploy on-prem and we also have deployment on our own AWS OSSIE code infrastructure.

It might be cheaper for someone to implement MuleSoft on-prem rather than on the cloud. With the on-prem version, we can deploy as many applications as we want on the on-prem version, provided the infrastructure is able to support it. However, for cloud-based deployments, they end up charging more.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

I work for customers in the retail and estate industries. We primarily use the solution to automate HR-related business processes. It includes interactions with the customers, making dashboards for customers, product to cash, and some other actions.

I mainly focus on the development part where I take requirements from the customers and consult with my technical architect, trying to translate the business requirements into actual technical solutions. Their development environment is good.

I also play the role of a technical architect, but this depends on the project requirements and customer requirements. In case they need consultation, I try to provide my expertise.

The issues are largely dependent on the scalability of the applications. Some solutions are created for larger customers or clients. Building an application that can be flexible and can be used at any scale is necessary. 

I have been using Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager for the last two years.

MuleSoft offers two kinds of solutions for customers, a MuleSoft-hosted one and a customer-hosted one.

If the customer chooses the MuleSoft-hosted platform, the licensing will be negotiated.

But if the platform is custom-built to your application, the cost won't be that high. Clients usually have their own servers.

It is not a very scalable solution. 

The customer support is good.

Positive

I previously worked on Barracato, an IPaaS tool that is mainly used to handle integration and automation issues.

Mulesoft is good compared to the other integration platforms.

The installation is abstracted and complex from the user's point of view. But MuleSoft provides support. It is somehow abstract, but for the customers, the integration and setup are simple processes.

It depends on different kinds of platforms, customer-hosted platforms, or new self-hosted platforms. If you are going with a new self-hosted platform, then there isn’t much to be done. It's very easy to set up.

But if you're going with a customer infrastructure or a customer-hosted platform, then it depends on the customer's settings and the teams. It involves time to set up the infrastructure. They need a platform and a landscape so that they can deploy it.

MuleSoft has a lot of maintenance solutions that help the applications notify or trigger alerts whenever any error occurs or is encountered in the application. It can be leveraged, making maintenance easy. 

Both the cloud and on-premises options are available. Customers can leverage the MuleSoft Cloud platform to deploy the applications or set up their own online infrastructure to deploy applications. There is another solution available that can be used to leverage some of the other cloud platforms, like Azure, CCP, or AWS. This can be used to integrate with cloud platforms so that applications can be deployed. 

I would advise customers that instead of building their infrastructure from scratch, they should choose MuleSoft Anypoint API.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten due to some scalability and pricing issues.