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."

"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 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."

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

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

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

"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 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."

"Mule Expression Language"

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

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

"I like that Mule ESB provides fast and good technical support."

"The product is very stable."

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

"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."

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

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

"The installation configuration is quite difficult."

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

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

"It is currently a weighty product."

"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."

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

"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."

"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 Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight."

"The initial setup is not easy."

"The initial setup could be more straightforward."

"We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing."

"Community editions need more attention."

"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."

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

"This product is more expensive than competing products."

"The solution is expensive."

"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."

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

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

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

"Most of the challenges that I had with this solution were for smaller customers. There is not a good licensing model or pricing model. It is more expensive than other solutions, and that's the downside of MuleSoft. I had to be creative to be able to sell it to the business, but we did. This is something they have to work on because for large companies, it's affordable, but for small and medium businesses, it's very hard to sell."

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."