Magic xpi Integration Platform vs Mule ESB comparison

"The stability of the solution is OK."

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

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

"The most powerful feature is DataWeave, which is a powerful language where data can be transformed from one form into another."

"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."

"Mule Expression Language"

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

"Scalability and load balancing."

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

"It is not performing well."

"The initial setup is not easy."

"Community editions need more attention."

"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."

"There are some features on the commercial version of the solution that would be great if they were on the community version. Additionally, if they added more authorization features it would be helpful."

"It's not easy to troubleshoot and we still can't make it work."

"One area that could be improved is the way that policies are propagated when APIs are moved from one environment to another. It's an issue, but when you develop and test the rest APIs in a lower environment and need to move them, there's a propagation process. This process moves certain aspects of the APIs, like the basic features. But when we move them, the policies don't always move with them. The policies should be able to move so we don't have to redo them manually. There are some APIs we use, but it's a bit tedious."

"In an upcoming release, I would like to see more additional concept for exception handling, batch processing, and increased integration with other application."

"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."

"The pricing must be improved."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"The solution is expensive."

"Mule ESB is an expensive solution."

"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."