Oracle Service Bus Reviews

I am using the solution to support core banking systems by managing the APIs. Whenever web services need to be deployed in the Service Bus we are using the solution. 

API management and defining varying protocols are the most valuable features of Oracle Service Bus.  

The error handling capability can be improved, but the present capacity just meets the requirements. The error should be properly displayed in Oracle Service Bus instead of the user's need to search in logs. 

I have been using Oracle Service Bus for less than five years. 

It's a stable solution. 

Oracle Service Bus offers a scalable system that supports both vertical and horizontal scaling. 

The tech support is satisfactory. I would rate the tech support of Oracle Service Bus an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup process of Oracle Service Bus is quite easy. The installation of the product can be completed in one or two hours, but the total deployment time varies from case to case. I believe the entire deployment of Oracle Service Bus can be finished within a day. One engineer is enough to deploy the solution. The solution can be easily maintained. 

Oracle Service Bus is able to provide our organization with approximately 20% cost savings. 

Oracle Service Bus is a bit expensive. I would rate the pricing a six out of ten. 

The solution is able to provide our company with a satisfying throughput. Oracle Service Bus has the capacity to implement high-volume transactions. There are some AI capabilities in the solution. I would overall rate Oracle Service Bus an eight out of ten. 

I would advise others to consider that it's vital to have a system like Oracle Service Bus to manage the APIs, monitor transactions between two systems and also obtain accurate logs. 

Its ease of use is valuable. It's very easy to use. It's no code/low code. Oracle Middleware products are also rich in adapters. 

It's stable. There aren't any bugs or issues.

If they can containerize this, that would be nice. If they can provide docker images and offer support for those containers, that would be great.

It's a stable product. Oracle purchased it from someone else, and it was already well-established. 

Its implementation depends on your skills. The more experience you have, the better designs or architecture you will have. The product might be the same, but the quality will vary based on how you implement it.

They are now moving towards the cloud. You have to evaluate what your requirements are and what your future strategies are. Based on that, you can go with an on-prem one or a cloud one. Nowadays, many products come with iPass, which is the lighter version or flavor of a product. The lighter flavors are for citizen developers, but if you want to do complex orchestration and build complex integrations, you definitely need a product like this with all the features available.

I'd rate Oracle Service Bus an eight out of ten. 

I use Service Bus to integrate multiple applications at an enterprise level. I work in the telecom sector and we integrate multiple applications and build PRM and CRM inventory systems. We are customers of Oracle and I'm the integration lead. 

Service Bus supports multiple protocol technologies and web services as well as file-based integration. It's very good in JMS-based integration. Nowadays, web service calls are based on SOAP and REST. Service Bus integrates well with different types of these supported protocols and systems. It's great in XML web service integration although REST and JSON formats are more in use these days. 

Service Bus lacks two main elements. The first is accessibility with the REST services and JSON. These are things that are generally available in most of the APIs address space nowadays. The second would be improved cloud compatibility. Oracle sometimes lags behind when it comes to newer formats.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

Service Bus is quite stable. If you implement it according to the guidelines, then I think it's a very stable product and provides good performance. 

The solution does not support auto-scaling. Nowadays, you have Kubernetes for containerization. It can scale up and down based on the load and volume and is better than Service Bus. We have around 10 people using Service bus; the technical team, an engineer, and mid-level developers. 

The technical support is very helpful and generally knowledgeable. Occasionally you get someone who is less knowledgeable but most of the time, they're great.

Positive

The initial setup is relatively simple and straightforward. It's not difficult for a layman to implement, especially the cluster environment. Deployment in an enterprise-level environment requires some experience because there are some complexities. If you're implementing without having modeled the threading effectively, the service performance is reduced. It's not a product limitation, but more about how you implement it. 

The main difference I see between Service Bus and other solutions is the cloud. The newer products coming out are cloud-native. Service Bus lacks that because it was not initially on the cloud. It needs to be more cloud-native. 

This is a very stable and good product to use. It's essential to have sufficient knowledge around implementation and to deal with thread work management to get better performance. A lot comes with experience but before implementing, it's worth going to Oracle and studying the recommendations around implementation and integration. 

Some improvements are needed around some of the latest technologies and trends, so I rate this solution eight out of 10.

Oracle makes adapters that work with a ton of software, so it makes it a lot easier to integrate with other systems.

It is stable.

It's hard to find developers to work on it, and it's also very expensive to license in the cloud.

The pricing is high.

It's very complex and hard to learn. There's a steep learning curve.

The solution is complex to set up.

I've been using the solution for six or seven years. 

It's definitely stable. It's fast and it's definitely heavily supported. That's definitely something I would describe it as. The reliability and performance are good.

While it is not scalable in the cloud, it is scalable outside of that. 

We have 45 users on the solution currently.

Support is pretty fast and they do work to fix bugs in a timely manner.

I replaced this solution with a Red Hat product.

It's more mature than Red Hat. They have a whole process that you go through. If the bug is their fault, you'll get a fixed board within one to two days, which is great if it's a major issue. I'd say support is a little better than the Red Hat solution.

The initial setup is not straightforward. It's very complex. 

The cost of the solution is too high. I can't remember the exact pricing, however, it is extremely expensive. There are cheaper better solutions out there. 

We're just a customer or end-user.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

We are doing lots of aggregation and routing – the two most important features that we are using it for – and transformation of the services and data.

I am using the latest version, 12.1.4. It's deployed on AWS cloud and on-prem. 

The routing and aggregation are the most valuable features. It's split and join.

I have been using it for two and a half years.

It's stable.

We are not using it on the container. It's a monolithic type of deployment on AWS, so obviously you won't have the scale of the containerized platform, but it's okay. I think with the 400 services, I haven't seen many issues. We have faced a problem with the heap memory side, but that is stable now.

I have also used TIBCO. It's difficult to manage, but it's a very robust product. You will not see any issues, but management of TIBCO is a challenge. You need expertise. In Oracle, you don't need a huge skillset, but if you talk about the robustness of the product, TIBCO is better. The performance of TIBCO is better compared to Oracle.

Deployment was easy. Sometimes, the API response is a problem if your payload is heavy.

We have a very huge project, almost 400 services. For developing support and services, it will take time.

We used our integration partner for deployment. Deployment wasn't a challenge, but creating the services takes time.

Oracle Service Bus is not a business application. It's a pure technical application, so there is no direct relation with ROI. It will help you to scale your application and orchestrate it, but it won't give you direct ROI because the nature of operating is different.

We have an unlimited yearly license.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

The middleware provides the service from our core banking and manages the equipment from the satellite system to the core banking SMS or to any other system. Any system can communicate to another system through the solution.

The most valuable feature is the monitoring feature, where we can track the web's UI development.

The tracing. Some unknown errors will sometimes happen and the error message isn't clear. The security process to protect the servers also needs improvement. Sometimes, you need to open the whole project and complete another setup in the server, then hurry back and go through the service application to complete the security setup. If Oracle SB had one button to complete this process in one step, it would be better.

For the next update, I'd like to see event-driven architecture.

I've been using Oracle Service Bus for five years.

The solution is stable.

It's easy to scale mostly from the Oracle side. We added another node in the cluster but we haven't yet tried it.

When we've contacted support, they haven't always resolved the issue. We've then tried from our end to find a workaround and ended up finding a solution.  Their support service could be improved.

The setup was simple and deployment was managed on my own. It took only a few minutes.

I would give this solution a seven out of ten. My advice is to be aware of the amount of space to collect all the requirements because sometimes, maintenance on existing setups can rebuild the servers from the beginning.

The solution is primarily used for the ESB. When we want to integrate applications with each other, they want to communicate with each other, we use this. If one application wants to send a message to some other applications. It's used for transformation and integration.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is very good. 

The installation is quite straightforward. 

We've been pleased with the level of technical support.

The pricing of the product could be better. It's a bit high.

We started using the solution around 2014. We've used it for quite a few years now. It's been a while. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

Due to the fact that the solution is technical, there are not that many people on it. We are only a few specialized people that work on this ESB. In development, there are around five to seven people. They are a mix of engineers, managers, and admins.

Technical support has been good. We're satisfied with the level of service on offer. 

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

In our systems, we install it for our local development. It's easy for us. It takes minutes to install it. The deployment process is quick.

We have five or six technical people that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks.

The pricing could be better.

We pay for the solution on a yearly basis. 

The product is a part of the Fusion Middleware. We have the full suite including the SOA and WebLogic.

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

If a company wants to go to the Oracle stack, I'd recommend this solution. If a company wants to use it, it should first evaluate their requirements and whether they need to expand or if they have the capacity.

Overall it is a pretty good solution.

The most valuable aspects of the solution are mainly the SOA, and the JMS patch. There are some out-of-box items that are good, and, for the most part, they do provide good plugins. We have done the integration with the ESB.

I'm very comfortable with Oracle. I have a good understanding of how the solution works.

Mainly our integrations are under JMS. We are looking at some products which have good features and performance related to the JMS. Even if tomorrow if you're planning to replace JMS with Kafka or some other product, then it will be feasible to do it very quickly. However, in Oracle, we have seen a lot of difficulties when we go to integrate Kafka with the replacement of JMS. 

The personal settings are not up-to-date, in terms of orchestration. In Italy, we use SOA, however, we have faced a lot of difficulties when we have orchestration projects. 

The interface console is very slow. Even in production, we need to increase the RAM or CPU. And even after that, the performance is still not good in production.

Sometimes, we have seen data loss from the EM. We can't even recover the data from the back end table. Even if we ask the Oracle support team to get a patch they're taking one or two months for the production issue to resolve. These issues are killing the business and productivity. For this reason, management decided to replace Oracle with some other products that are also based on the current application - such as SAP and TIBCO. We're updating our system anyway, so it is a good time to get rid of Oracle.

With Oracle right now, we have to hire more people in the support team to look into all the issues we're facing. That is killing our delivery times and everything. 

If I want to do certain integrations or use certain plugins, it occasionally can be really difficult to do the configuration in Oracle Service Bus.

I've been working with the solution for about 12 years at this point. It has been over a decade.

Technical support hasn't been too good as of late. 

They say that they are good in terms of dealing with an existing issue. If you highlight it, they can quickly respond with the patch or they can respond with the previous tickets. However, with the new tickets, they will acknowledge your tickets, yet they take forever to actually resolve them. 

I've only ever really worked with Oracle products. I did not previously use a different solution.

The cost is reasonable. The price is fine. However, you need to see results from support. When issues pop up in production, delays in support can lead to revenue loss. For this reason, our company is looking into other options. The solution isn't worth the price if it's costing you money in the long run.  

Right now, we're doing some due diligence before buying a product. The concept is the same in all the products, only the components are different, the way of integration also are different but the concept is same with the ESB. That's what we are discussing with the technical team. We might look at TIBCO or other things such as MuleSoft.

We aren't using the latest version of the solution. We're working on an older one right now.

After more than a decade of working with the product, I can say that it is a pretty good solution. That said, before buying, a company needs to take into account their overall infrastructure to understand the volume of data they will need to process, et cetera. Based on those requirements, you'll need to find a product that works for you. 

While I like Oracle, there's no denying the support issues. 

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

It becomes the platform for all managed file transfers. If you're looking at a high-speed managed file transfer or solution around that, it becomes a basic layer, or especially in use cases in payment gateways, or API-based types of solutions, probably this becomes a default there.

The solution will provide a visual view of your total process, which is where, and why it is stuck somewhere and probably where it is. You gain a real-time understanding of where the process is. The reporting around what is happening and if it is stuck, where it is stuck, and what actions to be taken is useful.

Overall, the solution is quite good and has lots of great features. There are always continuous improvements that are happening. 

The solution is quite expensive. 

It would be ideal if they could optimize it a bit. 

I've worked with Oracle for the last seven-and-a-half years.

Any new deployment I've seen has been stable. It's not a problem. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution is scalable. I've seen banking institutions use it and scale it quite well. 

If we are putting this up on the cloud, now they've released something similar to a support cost. They have to give us yearly support. You can actually buy the cloud credits probably if somebody wants to be on the cloud. However, normally you will get support, yearly support. What they've done is you buy back that support using Oracle cloud. With the cloud, you don't need support the way you do with the on-prem models. Support contracts are offered yearly with an annual subscription. 

When you need support, you raise a ticket. It's very simple. You follow up and send the logs. It's a long process. People may sometimes try to take Oracle Consulting Services which can also help with various types of things.

The initial setup process depends on project to project, however, typically, everything is paid for. Probably if you want to sell something, everything which is currently being sold in Oracle is specific to the cloud. If they want to move their on-prem to cloud, or they have services, free services, lift and shift services, and of course open-source. You name it and within a month maybe, or three months, depending on the type of job but other than that, everything is costed. Basically, everything, whatever resources you have to buy from Oracle is available and can be taken care of.

Any maintenance requirements are related to whatever package the client decides on. 

Oracle can deploy engineers to help with the deployment. 

This is a very, very expensive solution. It will cost a company a lot. 

It only is available on-premises; it is not subscription-based. These are perpetual licenses. Whether you take it to the cloud or not, with Oracle, you have to pay perpetual licensing. Oracle does not have the cloud as a subscription model.

This was a company that was acquired earlier, from DevLogic. Now people are asking for microservices-based architecture which currently is not an option. Especially, they use SOA services. Everything is not microservices-based architecture today. People who have been in banks, telcos, finance companies, even the government, those who have been using it for a long time, are the people probably who are the target audience right now. However, in the future, people are looking at types of services with architecture systems, which currently, SOA is not.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use the solution for message processing. 

From a technical perspective, the interface is fine and the solution is quite robust.

There are several improvements that could be made to the product. Security needs to be more integrated, there are so many new security techniques on the market that could be integrated. They should also be embedding API key and other security mechanisms. I find the solution to be somewhat lightweight. 

The solution is scalable although sometimes there is a memory bottleneck and the solution crashes. 

I carried out the deployment and it took a maximum of two hours. We have five users and one specialist who deals with maintenance. 

To choose this solution would depend on company priorities. If someone is looking for a highly scalable solution with security features embedded there are many other options available. If the case scenario is a customer who is already using Oracle Stack and has a good relationship with Oracle then I would recommend OSB if they can survive with the built-in security model. I would definitely recommend it for some customers.

I rate this product seven out of 10.