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

MuleSoft API Manager vs SwaggerHub comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 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 API Manager
Ranking in API Management
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SwaggerHub
Ranking in API Management
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the API Management category, the mindshare of MuleSoft API Manager is 4.4%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SwaggerHub is 1.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
MuleSoft API Manager4.4%
SwaggerHub1.5%
Other94.1%
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

D.Rajesh Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise Architect at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Improved Integration Efficiency and Potential for Further Enhancements in Monitoring and User Experience
The policies in MuleSoft API Manager are significant features. We get the policies by default, with more than 25 out-of-the-box policies. If any additional requirement exists specific to the customer, there is a custom policy framework. We can build the policy according to our requirement, and deploy and enable it at the API Manager level to consume across different business groups, environments, or organizations altogether within the platform. Developing the custom policy is not challenging; you just need to follow the custom policy framework to implement. The custom policy and the different levels of SLAs of the API Manager are notable. Regarding the monitoring side of the API Manager, MuleSoft provides substantial monitoring with logs, offering search capability, raw data accessibility, and different subscriptions. With the top tier, integration with third-party platforms such as ELK or Splunk becomes unnecessary because all search capabilities, dashboards, and functional monitoring can be built within the platform itself. This is excellent from the monitoring perspective, and there have been recent improvements focusing on observability. For DevOps, if you want to make your continuous integration and continuous deployment effective, irrespective of the tool, there are options to integrate. For example, you can use the Maven plugin, platform APIs, or CLI to build your end-to-end DevOps cycle.
Manish Indupuri - PeerSpot reviewer
senior DevOps engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Has streamlined API documentation and integration workflows across cross-functional teams
Documenting SwaggerHub has a standard and consistent structure of API definitions, and it automatically generates interactive documentation which helps the developers to understand everything. There are certain areas where SwaggerHub can go beyond here as formatting options for documentation pages are restricted, and the import and export options of API collections are complex in SwaggerHub. It provides various collaboration tools where we can work and do it. The strong validation against the API maintains conformity and reduces errors. That part is very great in SwaggerHub. Overall, scalability and stability-wise, it varies high compared to the competitors, but there are still certain areas where competitors are providing various customizations. SwaggerHub can understand those aspects and implement them as well. The complex import and export of API calls and collaborations can be challenging in SwaggerHub. If they can make it easier for us, that would be great. Their performance is degraded if there is too much load on the API. The customization and doc formatting options for documentation pages are restricted in SwaggerHub. A few of my teammates have complained that they find the UI unintuitive where it requires multiple clicks for simple tasks. SwaggerHub is a great tool, but these limitations can be addressed to make things better and easier.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most important features are the API management and API development."
"In comparison to other competitors, I believe MuleSoft API Manager is definitely the best option on the market, though it is very costly compared to all others, and APG also comes at a high cost."
"The stability overall has been pretty great."
"Both the cloud and on-premises options are available. Customers can leverage the MuleSoft Cloud platform to deploy the applications or set up their own online infrastructure to deploy applications."
"The gateway service to ingress the traffic is great."
"The documentation is great; it is always up to date and well-presented."
"The most valuable features of Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager are the API gateway, rate limiting, and orchestration."
"The MuleSoft Exchange and the Experience Hub stand out as the most valuable features."
"It is a stable solution."
"Since I started using SwaggerHub, it has had a positive impact on our organization due to better collaboration between developers and the quality assurance team, and it has reduced errors because of its automated validation."
"Normally, they publish their APIs on SwaggerHub for seamless integration with SmartBear and ReadyAPI, which allows us to perform detailed end-to-end automation testing."
"SwaggerHub is helping with team collaboration, as all the people now know the link, they just go there and get the information they need, and it is really a documentation tool for sharing documentation information about the API we support."
"The scalability is endless."
"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"It is quite a useful tool, quite good with the validation of the spec, works quite well in terms of errors and conformity to the OpenAPI standard, and is better than Visual Studio Code in terms of editing."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."
 

Cons

"When discussing potential enhancements overall, it primarily involves making it more user-friendly and lowering the pricing. There are several aspects that could benefit from improvement, or perhaps a few other areas to consider."
"The solution is expensive."
"It can offer workflows, orchestration, and webhooks."
"When it comes to pricing, I find it always expensive. The pricing is high, which is the biggest point where some customers are hesitant about adopting it, and their deployment strategy is also more costly due to containerization."
"Their studio performance is very slow, it requires a lot of memory, and should be improved."
"We have issues with the tool's pricing. The product seemed to have most of the features required for the tasks I was working on. I didn't feel the need for additional features. However, one aspect that could be improved is making the platform more user-friendly for non-technical users. While it's not necessarily complex, it does require some familiarity. Unlike open-source tools available online, accessing and using this product may not be as straightforward. It needs to offer training to its users."
"I'd like to see improvements in API Exchange. Currently, we can only expose APIs publicly. I want to categorize some APIs and expose them just to internal stakeholders. It would be great if they could log in to a developer portal, see our current APIs, view Swagger or RAML docs, and try request-response payloads."
"Mulesoft doesn't provide a complete stack. For example, it doesn't have BPM/Workflow, BAM, or Identity Management products."
"The scalability aspect of SwaggerHub can be improved. It becomes a bit unreliable when the load is increased and isn't up to par with expectations for scalability."
"SwaggerHub can be improved since the API testing features are limited compared to Postman, and it is somewhat expensive for small teams as paid plans cost a lot."
"At some point, we were missing some tagging of the APIs, and we could not do that."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."
"One of the most difficult things about SwaggerHub is the user interface and its usability, as it can feel quite complex and require too many clicks for simple actions."
"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is expensive."
"Our customers have a lot of concerns about the increased pricing. The customer feels MuleSoft is very costly, and they are also exploring other integration tools for a lesser price. Maybe we should retain the existing customers by offering some discounts. At least the existing customers can be retained this way. This is regarding the licensing part only because customers based out of North America and Europe have shown many concerns recently. They are a bit concerned about pricing."
"The product is highly priced compared to other advanced software. It is affordable only for tier-one customers."
"If one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the product price as six and a half to seven."
"When it comes to determining price, the pre-sales team interacts with the customer's primary integration team and the price is negotiated based on the specific usage of the system."
"The licensing fees are approximately $80,000 USD per year and there are costs for additional functionality, as well as premiums for connectors to systems such as Oracle and SAP."
"The licensing model is based on how many cores are used. It is a very simple licensing scheme."
"Pricing can be improved."
"It has a yearly subscription, but I am not sure."
"The tool is cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise44
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

How does Kong Enterprise compare with Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager?
The Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager was designed with its users in mind. Though it is a reasonably complex piece of software, it is easy to install and upgrade. While there are different things that ...
How does Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager compare with Amazon API Gateway?
I have found that Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager is the best integration tool out there for API management. It is easy to implement and learn; it provides several options for deployment, (including ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mulesoft Anypoint API Manager?
When it comes to pricing, I find it always expensive. The pricing is high, which is the biggest point where some customers are hesitant about adopting it, and their deployment strategy is also more...
What needs improvement with SwaggerHub?
SwaggerHub can be improved since the API testing features are limited compared to Postman, and it is somewhat expensive for small teams as paid plans cost a lot.
What is your primary use case for SwaggerHub?
My main use case for SwaggerHub is to design and review API specifications, as I test endpoints with the help of Swagger UI, validate the request and the response schemas, and share the API documen...
What advice do you have for others considering SwaggerHub?
Before using SwaggerHub, I advise having basic API knowledge, as those with API knowledge can easily use SwaggerHub. I would rate this review an eight out of ten.
 

Also Known As

Anypoint API Manager
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Coca-Cola, Splunk, Citrix, UCSF, Vertu, State of Colorado, National Post, TiVo, Deakin, LLS, Oldcastle Precast, ParcelPoint, Justice Systems, Ube, Sumitomo Corporation, PacificComp, University of Witwatersrand, Groupe Initiatives, Camelot, Panviva
Sonic, Zuora, Woolworths, CrowdFlower
Find out what your peers are saying about MuleSoft API Manager vs. SwaggerHub and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.