IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Mule ESB comparison

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

"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."

"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."

"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."

"The solution offers multiple deployment options."

"What Mule provides out-of-box is a sufficient product."

"Easy connectivity and easy integration."

"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."

"The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot."

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

"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."

"The product's features are not being upgraded or enhanced by the vendor"

"As our business requirements evolve, we require more dynamic capabilities to adapt and scale our services accordingly."

"It is currently a weighty product."

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

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

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

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

"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."

"Limitation on external subscribers to listen to the messages on the bus."

"The current version will not be supported for much longer."

"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."

"Lacking some connectors that could be included."

"Community editions need more attention."

"The initial setup is not easy."

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

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

"The solution is expensive."

"The solution is expensive."

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

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

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

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

"Mule ESB is an expensive solution."

"The various features and components for this solution are no longer free."

"The pricing must be improved."

"The licensing is yearly, and there are additional fees for services."

"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."

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

"Plan your licensing model (cloud or on-premises or hybrid) that will allow seamless integration with new partners."

"This is expensive. In my next project, we had to go to other vendor."