MuleSoft Composer Reviews

I have been using it for a few months. I need to understand how MuleSoft Composer works and how the workflows are organized when we receive a request from a customer to estimate the complexity of migration from MuleSoft Composer if a customer wants to consolidate the integration suite. I need to understand how the source flow is constructed, how it is developed, and how to implement similar functionality in integration suite.

NA

MuleSoft Composer can be used with SAP. It is quite powerful and a lightweight solution. It has more options for installation and architecture because it can run entirely on-premise. The integration suite doesn't have the option to run within customer infrastructure. Though they have agent integration cell, I still have questions because the runtime is on-premise, but monitoring can be difficult.

Pre-built connectors help since development from scratch isn't necessary.

It performs quite effectively with mappings. While perhaps not as flexible as graphical mapping in PI/PO, it functions adequately.

I used Anypoint Studio, which is good though not very flexible. It seems strange that some functionality from MuleSoft Composer is available from Eclipse and some from Visual Code. It would be better to concentrate on one platform and develop everything on it for the integrated development environment.

I have limited experience and do not have project experience where I built something in MuleSoft Composer that is running in production.

NA

NA

I do not have much experience and have never contacted Salesforce support for this product.

Negative

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

I have analyzed but haven't used MuleSoft Composer extensively. I am not very proficient in the subject of pricing.

Both platforms are performing well. If a customer is more SAP-centric, it makes sense to consider integration suite because of the predefined content. A customer will need to have SAP BTP for side-by-side application extensions. MuleSoft Composer is powerful and flexible in terms of installation options, with runtime either on cloud or fully on-premise. It is quite a popular platform. MuleSoft Composer might be less expensive than SAP integration suite, though this is an assumption as I haven't compared prices.

I am accustomed to learning and studying with SAP documentation. The organization is more convenient for me, though there are plenty of documentation and resources for MuleSoft Composer as well.

The context is the primary consideration. If a customer uses multiple SAP solutions, not just SAP for accounting, it makes sense to consider the integration suite due to better SAP compatibility. When SAP introduces new interface technology, integration suite will be the first to support it, while MuleSoft Composer will need time to develop new connectors.

I rate this solution a six out of ten.

Primarily, we use it for data integration. It often involves taking data from one system and moving it to another.

SAP is our core system, but we have nearly a hundred other systems surrounding it. We need them to work together and exchange data, which is where Composer comes in.

So, Composer acts as a connector for various parts of our system. We use CPI for SAP data exchange, but for other systems, we rely on MuleSoft Composer and Oracle Data Integrator.

We could utilize it more within our HR and administrative departments.

The way Composer organizes and manages integration processes is most beneficial. We can easily monitor what's running and what isn't and troubleshoot any data integration issues.

It handles a wide variety of data sources. We haven't faced any issues with connecting to the ones we need. So, MuleSoft Composer effectively handles different data sources.

We're very satisfied with MuleSoft Composer, specifically with sales and transportation data. That's why we continue to use it.

The most challenging integrations involve data exchange with our supply chain (transportation system) and sales systems. Those are two of the toughest integrations – sales data and transportation data.

So, there is room for improvement in the HR and administrative modules. 

I have been using it for two years. 

We use MuleSoft, which is owned by Salesforce, for data integration. We've (my company) been using it for about two years.

The stability is good. 

The scalability is good. We'll likely scale vertically to handle the volume of data we use.

The customer service and support are good. They meet our needs. 

Positive

We use Oracle Data Integrator Cloud Service (Oracle) and SAP. 

We also use CPI (Cloud Platform Integration) and MuleSoft. We use SAP APIs within the BTP (Business Technology Platform) environment.  

Oracle Data Integrator is cheaper. It's a good solution, though not as comprehensive as MuleSoft Composer. We use Oracle Data Integrator when there are budget constraints. 

We use SAP CPI (Cloud Platform Integration) because it's the best solution for integrating with SAP systems--it's much easier than MuleSoft Composer for that specific purpose because it's designed for SAP integration.

The deployment process is smooth. We didn't have any issues. We had to train our technical staff, but once they're trained, deployment is easy whether you're using cloud or on-premise.

We have a hybrid environment. That was one of the key reasons we chose MuleSoft Composer – it works well in hybrid setups.

My team handles deployment. I'm not directly involved in the technical aspects, but it's straightforward once you're trained and educated on it.

Moreover, it is easy to maintain. We have three to four people, so only a few dedicated professionals can handle it.

We do not have a direct direct ROI. However, we do have an indirect ROI as our core solution and processes rely on integration tools that don't always provide a direct return. These improve data exchange speed, reliability, and overall availability. These things can not be directly measured but are important to us.

We need to expand MuleSoft Composer usage. Currently, not every department uses it. We try to use the right tool in terms of investment. Even though we don't directly measure ROI, we know that expanding MuleSoft to other departments means scaling up our license or Composer usage. We focus on using it for critical integration points.  

The pricing is expensive. It's a good tool, but also expensive. Especially since we're based in Brazil, we pay in dollars but earn in Brazilian real. The exchange rate makes it a costly solution despite its quality. It's a good tool, but the cost is something to consider.

So, one additional feature they could add might be something like regional prices.

I'd recommend to invest in staff training upfront and carefully understand the licensing model and your data usage. 

I would suggest understanding how the licensing model works and how your data flows. This will give you a clearer notion of how much you are going to pay (potential cots). 

We invested a lot of time figuring out the implications of CPU usage, message rates, memory usage, as well as our data's origin and destination. This allows us to understand the true financial impact of MuleSoft Composer. Without this understanding, you might face unexpected costs.

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

I mostly use it for integrations, as per our client's requirements. The clients want integrations with various tools.

One client's requirement was to integrate with Azure Instance, which required authorization. It was difficult to configure, but we managed to do it.

The functionality of MuleSoft to connect with any database is the most important feature.

Configuration could be easier, but we were able to handle it. It seems that juniors find it challenging, but seniors like me know how to configure it properly. There are no issues.

There is also one limitation. We cannot see logs, latencies, or request counts. That is a limitation.

MuleSoft Composer should have AI integration and capabilities. Other tools offer AI capabilities. But I can't see anything in MuleSoft right now. So, in future releases, I would like to see more AI capabilities. 

I have been using MuleSoft Composer for 12 years. 

I usually use the whole stack, MuleSoft ESB, Anypoint MQ, and MuleSoft Composer.

Sometimes, it glitches. The screen freezes, and sometimes recombinations in Composer take a long time.

Otherwise, it works fine. 

MuleSoft is scalable.

Deployment is very easy.

The deployment took around one hour to one hour and fifteen minutes. It depends on the system's specifications. But, it won't take much time. 

One engineer is enough to deploy it.

It requires a little effort for maintenance, just daily practice.

So just regular maintenance is there.

There is ROI in terms of time savings. It has saved us a lot of time, maybe even 50%.

It's costly, especially for Indian clients. Reducing the price would help them penetrate the Indian market.

A two-year license costs around seventy lakhs rupees. It's a considerable amount.

According to Gartner reports, Kong is gaining traction. It doesn't have the same integrations as MuleSoft, but it's becoming more popular due to MuleSoft's high latency.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

It's a good tool that can fulfill all requirements. But one needs to know how to configure it well.

On positive note, it's low-code/no-code, so it's easy to handle.

We use the solution to fetch large amounts of data that our clients have stored. We use it for migration.

API Sharing is valuable. The prebuilt connectors have saved our customers a lot of time and money. It helps build things quickly.

The product must create more awareness and enable more use cases. It will help us use the solution for current problems. The vendor must reach out to the technical leads of organizations and teach them how to use the tool.

I have been using the solution for three years.

We have faced a few issues. We reached out to support and got them resolved.

We had 500 to 1000 users in our organization.

I rate the customer support a seven to eight out of ten. The technical support team's response time must be improved. The support team must provide certain services on demand on a priority basis. They must provide resolutions to queries within six or eight hours. The resolution must be faster.

Neutral

The initial setup was very straightforward. The customer support team solved all our doubts.

The tool is a bit expensive. However, we must pay a premium price for the best solutions. It would be great if the pricing could be reduced by 20% to 30%. Then, medium-level companies would be able to afford the solution easily.

Our customer’s system is very old. We are trying to upgrade it. We are extracting data from the system and sending it to Salesforce. The product is a good option if we want to build process automation for data. It can be done quickly through the tool. We need not do coding and waste our time and efforts.

The ease of learning depends on the person who is learning the product. It depends on whether they come from a developer background. It would be easy to learn if they have some experience in coding and have worked on integrations. I haven’t faced many challenges while scaling our integration solutions with MuleSoft Composer. The drag-and-drop interface has not impacted our project deployment time much. The customer support and price can be improved. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for integration where non-technical users can integrate the flows.

The solution invokes some RPS from Composer and then sends emails and flat notifications. It helps us integrate with any third-party SAPE or integration tools.

There are some challenges with API sharing in Composer.

I have been using MuleSoft Composer for two years.

The solution is pretty stable. There are no crashes. It handles side loads and makes deploying good resources in the market easy.

Four to five people use this solution. It's pretty scalable. It handles low volumes. If the volume is low, it should be good.

The turnaround time is pretty good. Support gets back to even low-priority issues pretty fast. Resolving an issue takes at least one or two iterations.

The initial setup is straightforward. Since it's a cloud product, building and deploying will probably take 15-20 minutes. You can deploy it yourself; you don't need any additional folks. 

The solution saves 70% of our time.

The automation capability is pretty good. There is not much of a manual task. With our RPA, we can automate even manual tasks into automated platforms. The efficiency is also vertical.

The tool is hosted on MuleSoft's platform, so they take care of the maintenance.

MuleSoft Composer significantly saves time. Unlike traditional integration tools where reliance on IT staff for requirement gathering, building, testing, deployment, and maintenance is common, Composer streamlines the process. Its user-friendly interface makes it easy to use, reducing the dependency on specialized IT knowledge.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We got the full suite from MuleSoft. Composer was one of the elements that we use out of these to integrate with Salesforce. We have not used composer to the full extent because we are building APIs to integrate with other applications. Composer was used for a specific load that we wanted to build Salesforce. 

If you are a Salesforce customer, it is best for you to use Composer because you're going to remain in the same ecosystem. The advantage of using MuleSoft as part as the Salesforce ecosystem is that anything new they build is guaranteed to work with the new features that are coming from the other side.  

This solution could be improved by offering more integrations with other platforms. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

The scalability depends on your contract with the vendor and your resources.

Salesforce is licensed by user and by products and so pricing depending on what your requirements are. You need to understand all the resources, features and architecture that you'll need upfront so that you don't become constrained later on.

I would recommend using composer to others. Previously, we had to build APIs in Salesforce. With Composer, you can actually build your own integration very quickly without needing to write API code.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We use MuleSoft Composer for integrations. 

The product is easy to use. You don't need programming skills to use it. 

MuleSoft Composer needs to improve its interface and scalability. 

I have been working with the product for two months. 

The tool is stable; I rate it a nine out of ten. 

I was the single user of MuleSoft Composer in my company. I rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten. 

MuleSoft Composer's deployment is easy. 

MuleSoft Composer is affordable, and I rate its pricing a five to six out of ten. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.