We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker and Mule ESB based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Straightforward development and deployment."
"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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"The solution has good integration."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"It was pretty fast to develop APIs on this platform, which is something I liked about it. So, the time to value was pretty good."
"We can use Java expressions anywhere in the flow."
"The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot."
"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."
"I am impressed with the product's connectors and scalability."
"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."
"It is easily deployable and manageable. It has microservices-based architecture, which means that you can deploy the solution based on your needs, and you can manage the solution very easily."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The installation configuration is quite difficult."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Mule ESB is more into the latest REST APIs, not much into the SOAP web services. Developing is all about web services and not easy with Mule."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"Community editions need more attention."
"It would be beneficial if users could navigate the UI easily without extensive training or learning curves."
"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."
"In order to meet the new trend of active metadata management, we need intelligent APIs that can retrieve new data designs and trigger actions over new findings without human intervention."
"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."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and JBoss ESB. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.