Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Aurea CX Messenger vs Mule ESB comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 3, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Aurea CX Messenger
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
12th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Business Activity Monitoring (3rd), Message Queue (MQ) Software (9th), SOA Governance (3rd), Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) (7th)
Mule ESB
Ranking in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Aurea CX Messenger is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mule ESB is 20.6%, down from 22.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Lightweight and efficient solution
It's very good and lightweight. But, it does not provide web service communication. But it is excellent for internal connections One valuable feature is the messaging broker. If there is a disruption, it restores the messages. And when the application is running, it delivers all the messages. The…
PurbayanSaha - PeerSpot reviewer
Has API-led architecture and provides a unique, user-friendly, and scalable architecture for hosting APIs
There's room for improvement in multi-file transfer functionality. It's not convenient when using MuleSoft, and it should have better capability for handling large amounts of data. For example, applications like GoAnywhere can handle huge chunks of data, so the tool should also have something to facilitate that aspect of integration.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"For complex cases, we employ the SSLi engine, whereas for simpler ones like healthcare or response data, such as EDI 270 or 271. We prefer to use an external XRT engine instead of handling it within the ESB for ease of management."
"What Mule provides out-of-box is a sufficient product."
"Easy connectivity and easy integration."
"The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."
"Mule ESB has a user-friendly design, and everything is in one place. The API and architecture are popular right now. Also, MuleSoft has a large and supportive online community."
 

Cons

"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"Community editions need more attention."
"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"MuleSoft isn't as mature as some other integration technologies out there like IBM WebSphere. There's room for growth, and MuleSoft is working toward that."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"The stability could be improved."
"In India, particularly in the banking sector, clients do not prefer cloud solutions due to regulatory and compliance requirements."
"Mule ESB could be more user-friendly. I think users must learn about the architecture before they start coding. The price could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an EDIFACT integration."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is not so high."
"You pay nothing for licensing, because the commercial model is a subscription. Other environments, such as QA and Development, are included in the subscription"
"Much better than Oracle SOA Suite."
"The licensing is yearly, and there are additional fees for services."
"The solution is expensive."
"This is expensive. In my next project, we had to go to other vendor."
"You will not get any support from Mule ESB's team for the tool's community edition...You can get support with the licensed version of Mule ESB."
"The various features and components for this solution are no longer free."
"This product is cheaper than some offered by other vendors, although there is a problem because you have to pay for some third-party adapters."
"The price of the Mule ESB commercial version is expensive. However, they have a free community version."
"The pricing must be improved."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Insurance Company
8%
Media Company
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Aurea CX Messenger?
The Messenger Broker is a really good feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Aurea CX Messenger?
The pricing is not so high. I will rate it a seven out of ten, where one is the lowest and ten is the highest. There are no additional fees to the standard license.
What needs improvement with Aurea CX Messenger?
The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services because the earlier version is not using web service and cloud functionality. If Aurea could include these features in the fut...
Migration from IBM Integration Bus to Mulesoft ESB for a large enterprise tech services company
I was previously part of the Oracle SOA/OSB development team. In my current capacity I architected solutions using MuleSoft Anypoint Platform on cloud / on-premises and hybrid modes and on PCE/RTF ...
IBM Integration Bus vs Mule ESB - which to choose?
Our team ran a comparison of IBM’s Integration Bus vs. Mule ESB in order to determine what sort of ESB software was the best fit for our organization. Ultimately we decided to choose IBM Integratio...
What do you like most about Mule ESB?
The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot.
 

Also Known As

CX Messenger Enterprise, Aurea Sonic ESB, Aurea Sonic, Aurea Sonic MQ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Heathrow, HomeServe, Paypal, Freedom Mortgage
Ube, PacificComp, University of Witwatersrand, Justice Systems, Camelot
Find out what your peers are saying about Aurea CX Messenger vs. Mule ESB and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.