IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Mule ESB comparison

"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."

"It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."

"It's reliable for our day-to-day operations, ensuring fast and secure data integration across different systems."

"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."

"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."

"The solution has good integration."

"The transactions and message queuing are the most valuable features of the solution."

"IBM WebSphere Message Broker is one of the best middleware solutions"

"I'm not using ESB directly. It is the integration layer, so it's running under the hood. However, the conversion and transformation performance is excellent. Anypoint Enterprise Security is also solid."

"The architecture based on events has several connectors which allow integration from external and internal applications of the company."

"The connectors help to connect with a variety of applications."

"Most of our use cases are for Salesforce. So, the connectors for Salesforce have been really helpful. They've made development two times faster."

"Mule Expression Language"

"The connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."

"Mule ESB is a very easy-to-use and user-friendly solution."

"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."

"The solution can add container engines such as docker."

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."

"It is currently a weighty product."

"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."

"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."

"Technical support is good but they could have a better response time."

"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."

"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."

"The initial setup is not easy."

"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."

"It would be much more beneficial if the solution included AI and business process management."

"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."

"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."

"The solution isn't as stable as we'd like it to be. There are some ongoing issues and therefore Mule has to provide frequent patches. Mule's core IP should be more stable overall."

"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."

"The solution is expensive."

"I feel with IBM, when you want certain functions or features, you have to continuously purchase add-ons. There are always additional fees."

"The licensing cost of IBM WebSphere Message Broker needs to be reduced"

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"The solution is expensive."

"The price is very high and it's the main reason that we are searching for alternatives."

"IBM products are generally more stable and have more features, but also come at a greater cost."

"IBM software can be costly, but having a contract has helped manage and potentially lower costs over time."

"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."

"Regarding licensing and pricing, I find it somewhat flexible. They are more flexible with larger customers compared to small and medium ones, as their licensing model depends on ports and other factors. Large customers benefit from more flexibility in implementation and renewal compared to smaller ones."

"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."

"I think the price is very high. If you use TIBCO BW, the license is for the CPU usage, then the IPS, and support. I also think the license for the product is a one-time expense."

"Mule ESB is a costly solution. We pay approximately $80,000 annually for the system. The cost of the number of instances, annual subscription, and cloud hosting services are expensive."

"The pricing must be improved."

"This product is expensive, but it does offer value for money."

"The price of the Mule ESB commercial version is expensive. However, they have a free community version."