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

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform vs OpenText Trading Grid comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

MuleSoft Anypoint Platform
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
1st
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
4th
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
Message Queue (MQ) Software (4th), Workload Automation (8th)
OpenText Trading Grid
Ranking in Business-to-Business Middleware
12th
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
31st
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Business-to-Business Middleware category, the mindshare of MuleSoft Anypoint Platform is 12.3%, down from 15.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Trading Grid is 4.2%, up from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business-to-Business Middleware
 

Featured Reviews

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.
VARUNKUMAR - PeerSpot reviewer
Industry-leading, easy to implement, and has good mapping specification guidelines
The good thing about OpenText is that we have the mapping specification guideline available, which is not there in a solution like SEEBURGER. Whenever you want to take a decision to move away from OpenText, you have already documented your mapping and what your mapping looks like. So you go to the next provider, provide them with that mapping specification, and it'll be very easy for them to develop a new map instead of just taking the data - input data, output data - and then looking for how the data is getting transformed. So you have the mapping spec level which is a very good feature of OpenText, which we do not have in SEEBURGER. It's very hard to move from SEEBURGER. The solution is easy to implement. It's stable and reliable. They are the industry leaders in the integration space.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"API management."
"It has improved our organization a lot because of the increase in productivity, and it has simplified the development of products. MuleSoft Anypoint Platform is a highly effective tool where you can build integrations so effectively. If you establish the integration platform, it increases productivity. It helps us to do effective re-authentication, and it speeds the integration."
"The tool's visual features are attractive."
"It's easy to develop APIs."
"The solution's market place for different kinds of integration platforms is the most valuable feature."
"MuleSoft Anypoint Platform's most valuable features are its observability and stability."
"Whenever we need some support in our local language, we get it easily. They also have an office in Germany and if a person is unable to contact them by phone, they can go to the office in person."
"Good interface, simple to use and stable."
"The solution is easy to implement."
 

Cons

"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."
"It doesn't work well when you try using it for the processing layer."
"The solution is very costly. The solution should provide a package with fewer capabilities at a lower price for specific companies that don’t have a big IT budget. Not every customer requires all the capabilities of the software. It will be a good fit in the market, and they will easily sell it more."
"The price could be improved."
"MuleSoft's release calendar is rather conventional with two major, two minor releases and hotfixes in between. The competition sometimes offer more rapid release cycles and provides improved and new functionality with a faster time-to-market."
"The solution is very expensive. They need to work on the pricing."
"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."
"Its documentation needed a little bit of work to make it more usable. It is a platform that is used mainly by developers and other people for connecting systems. Its documentation was confusing in some areas and was not very helpful in other areas. I had to go to a consultant to get some work done, which ideally shouldn't be required."
"Technical support needs to be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing can be complex as is the case with most iPaaS/cloud offerings."
"The product comes complete at one set price including support."
"Making changes in Anypoint MQ is expensive."
"I rate the product price a nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive."
"The solution is the priciest in the market which is an issue for some clients."
"The tool is heavily bundle-priced. I rate the solution’s pricing five on a scale of ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap."
"Mule Anypoint Platform is an expensive solution."
"The licensing is core-based. My customers tell me that it's very expensive compared to the cost of other integration suites."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business-to-Business Middleware solutions are best for your needs.
839,319 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
24%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Retailer
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Data Integrator, Anypoint MQ
Trading Grid, GXS Trading Grid
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

VMware, Gucci, MasterCard, Target, Time Inc, Hershey's, Tesla, Spotify, Office Depot, Intuit, CBS, Amtrak, Salesforce, Gap, Ralph Lauren
Autoliv, Hella, Hutchinson, Michelin
Find out what your peers are saying about Salesforce, SAP, IBM and others in Business-to-Business Middleware. Updated: February 2025.
839,319 professionals have used our research since 2012.