Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Magic xpi Integration Platform vs MuleSoft Anypoint Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Magic xpi Integration Platform
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
23rd
Average Rating
3.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
MuleSoft Anypoint Platform
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Message Queue (MQ) Software (4th), Business-to-Business Middleware (2nd), Workload Automation (10th), Cloud Data Integration (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of Magic xpi Integration Platform is 0.4%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MuleSoft Anypoint Platform is 13.5%, down from 16.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user977634 - PeerSpot reviewer
A low-performing integration tool
We use it as an in-house back-type integration tool. It allows us to have different integrations between different systems It does not perform well. It needs more reusable components that are unlimited in time. Furthermore, it relies on the files systems and does not create components, so it is…
Vijay Subramanyam - PeerSpot reviewer
Robust, reliable, and stable, ensuring high availability for critical integrations
I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten; it is a highly scalable solution. We have around 200 end users using this solution in our company. We use it to its maximum capacity. However, it's not for P1 applications, but definitely for severity two cases (P2 level). It integrates critical applications, but it's not a platform that, if it stops, the entire system would come down. So, it's more like a severity two level. However, it has the potential to eventually become a P1 platform. Not exactly P1 applications, but a P1 platform. Because now we are still in the transition to migrate everything, all the integrations to Mule Anypoint Platform. But once it's done, then this platform becomes critical. Because even now, we have point-to-point connections.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The stability of the solution is OK."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is a huge list of available connectors for a lot of different platforms, which we can use very easily."
"The API toolkit is the solution's most valuable aspect at this time, for our organization."
"We are very satisfied with the DevOps support."
"The platform's cloud integration capabilities are good."
"Overall, it is a pretty good product. It is also very scalable."
"The product’s ability to seamlessly translate protocols is great."
"The solution's deployment and proxy processes are very good."
"Customers can make use of Runtime Fabric, an RTF environment."
 

Cons

"It is not performing well."
"Mule Anypoint Platform should improve its pricing. In my experience, a customer using the sandbox version couldn't upgrade to the final version because it exceeded their budget. Another area for improvement is the login mechanism. We need to integrate with third-party products for strong authentication, but it would be better if MuleSoft had its own robust login mechanism."
"We would like an entire DevOps in place in this particular solution."
"The cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required, especially when compared to other tools, like Dell Boomi or Oracle."
"One area for improvement is the Community Hub or developer portal, which should be part of the base offering."
"Anypoint MQ's capabilities are mainly used for messaging purposes, but it doesn't have typical use cases that extend as far as other Message Queue software."
"MuleSoft is considered one of the more expensive products in the market."
"It has different types of subscriptions. For platinum or lower subscriptions, there are not too many things that can be done. We don't see many features. They should release a basic version that has logging and monitoring features. These features should come with Mule Anypoint Platform for free instead of making customers pay separately for these features. Its dashboard can be improved to have a lot of charts so that it is easy to visualize information. The utilization part can be improved. The dashboard is good currently, but it can be better. Other solutions like Elastic have a good dashboard, and they allow you to administer the product from the UI. Currently, for RTF, there is a different dashboard or utility. It would be good to include the same utility in the cloud solution. It would be good if there is a centralized repository that includes the links to the information about various troubleshooting issues. The documentation is there currently, and it is good, but the troubleshooting information is too scattered. We have to go to different links to find troubleshooting information. This kind of centralized repository would be helpful for new customers who are implementing this solution. It will be helpful to see different kinds of issues that can occur."
"When we are integrating with other applications, readily available connectors make it easy. However, when it comes to external applications, connectivity isn't as straightforward."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The product comes complete at one set price including support."
"The solution's pricing, as per the old approach, is expensive."
"The product's price seems to be competent in comparison to other products in the market."
"Mule is not the cheapest integration platform out there, but it deserves the price we are paying."
"Mule Anypoint Platform pricing is slightly higher compared to Dell Boomi."
"The tool's pricing is cheaper than other RPAs' since it is execution-based. Other RPAs charge based on subscriptions."
"Mule Anypoint Platform is an expensive solution."
"The solution is the priciest in the market which is an issue for some clients."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Retailer
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
7%
Educational Organization
23%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What advice do you have for others considering Mule Anypoint Platform?
I architected solutions using Oracle SOA/OSB, Spring Boot, MuleSoft Anypoint Platform on cloud / on-premises and hybrid modes; What I see is though if you are an enterprise and have enough money th...
How does TIBCO BusinessWorks compare with Mule Anypoint Platform?
Our organization ran comparison tests to determine whether TIBCO BusinessWorks or Mule Anypoint platform integration and connectivity software was the better fit for us. We decided to go with Mule...
What can Mule Anypoint Platform be used for and what do you use it for most often?
This is a very flexible solution that comes with multiple uses. My organization mostly uses Mule Anypoint Platform for API management, as it lets us build new APIs easily and design new interfaces...
 

Also Known As

Magic xpi Integration Platform, iBOLT
Data Integrator, Anypoint MQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Godrej Properties
VMware, Gucci, MasterCard, Target, Time Inc, Hershey's, Tesla, Spotify, Office Depot, Intuit, CBS, Amtrak, Salesforce, Gap, Ralph Lauren
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle and others in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS). Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.