IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs Mule ESB comparison

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

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

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

"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."

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

"The documentation, performance, stability and scalability of the tool are valuable."

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

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

"The solution offers multiple deployment options."

"The product is very stable."

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

"The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."

"It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications."

"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."

"The solution improved my company by modernizing the way we offer services and improving the user experience."

"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."

"It is currently a weighty product."

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

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

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

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

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

"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."

"It would be great to see implementing security modules as a feature."

"The solution's setup needs to be a bit more straightforward and its support needs to respond faster."

"Lacking some connectors that could be included."

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

"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."

"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 the next release, I would like to see improvement in the generator for the DataWeave language so that it's a little more graphic."

"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."

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

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

"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"

"The solution is expensive."

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

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

"The solution is expensive."

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

"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."

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

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

"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."