We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus and Mule ESB based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Both solutions receive high marks from reviewers. IBM Integration Bus has a slight advantage over Mule ESB due to its flexibility and user-friendly interface.
"Promotes the reuse of developed resources to more efficiently consume resources."
"It has the ability to be deployed without rewriting the code."
"The product is usually very easy to deploy."
"Easy to understand documentation with a huge list of examples and tutorials."
"IBM Integration Bus' most valuable features are its performance, fast and easy development, and easy support."
"I use the integration of Kafka and the message flow, which is really good. It is also good for moving any file from one location to another. Using IBM Integration Bus in the data stage is pretty simple. You can see the preview and other things. The MQ server integrated with IBM Integration Bus is really great. I don't have to do a lot of configuration from that side. It is really good."
"The most valuable thing is the loose coupling and making the change in only one stack of the ESB layer or the middleware layer."
"The multi-approach and the multi-capabilities are valuable."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"Scalability and load balancing."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."
"The most valuable features of Mule ESB are its ease of use, documentation, ease to adapt to newer security and vulnerabilities, and a lot of help available. Additionally, there is a lot of flexibility, many patches available, and they provide APIs. They are a market standard."
"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"The connectors help to connect with a variety of applications."
"I like that it's user-friendly. Compared to other ESBs, I find it easier to use. I like it better than other ESBs. I like the connectors, which make calling the APIs through the routers easier."
"I would like to be able to run and install this solution on different platforms."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"IBM Integration Bus could improve by having a more lightweight installation. Additionally, automation could improve."
"We used a third-party vendor, who help us install the solution and it was not easy."
"Sometimes migration takes too long."
"The solution needs instruction or guidance."
"IBM Integration Bus could be easier to manage, but this is true of all vendors. It doesn't always do what it says on the box."
"Technical support is something that should be better."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvement in the generator for the DataWeave language so that it's a little more graphic."
"The price of Mule ESB could improve."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"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."
"One area that could be improved is the way that policies are propagated when APIs are moved from one environment to another. It's an issue, but when you develop and test the rest APIs in a lower environment and need to move them, there's a propagation process. This process moves certain aspects of the APIs, like the basic features. But when we move them, the policies don't always move with them. The policies should be able to move so we don't have to redo them manually. There are some APIs we use, but it's a bit tedious."
"From the product perspective, it was sometimes hard to manage the dependencies. When we had to add dependencies on a couple of different packages, it was sometimes confusing. It was hard to update them with Anypoint Studio, as well as with MuleSoft. There were challenges with that. So, that's one of the areas that could be improved."
"We would like the ability to use our own code. This would allow us to develop customizations with ease. Additionally, it would be nice to have more analytics or insights on the exchanged information between databases."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 65 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server, Red Hat Fuse and IBM DataPower Gateway. See our IBM Integration Bus vs. Mule ESB report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.