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

MuleSoft Composer vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.6
MuleSoft Composer enhances efficiency, reduces costs, improves time-to-market, and increases value with easy integration and better data accuracy.
Sentiment score
7.1
webMethods.io delivers rapid ROI through cost savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity, depending on specific implementations.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.3
Users commend MuleSoft Composer's responsive and professional customer service team for efficient problem-solving and quick resolution times.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but users note occasional delays and desire improved technical support communication.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
MuleSoft Composer is highly rated for scalability, efficiently managing varying data volumes and adaptable for organizations of all sizes.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its scalability in cloud and on-premises environments, with some licensing constraints noted.
Vertically, scalability is fine, however, I have not expanded horizontally with the product yet.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.0
Users find MuleSoft Composer stable and well-performing, despite occasional glitches quickly resolved by support.
Sentiment score
7.6
webMethods.io is generally stable and reliable, with minor issues in specific modules and cloud version maturity needed.
There are some issues like the tool hanging or the need for additional jars when exposing web services.
 

Room For Improvement

MuleSoft Composer needs better platform integrations, interface, scalability, AI integration, and support for complex data and API sharing challenges.
webMethods.io needs clearer documentation, better scalability, intuitive interfaces, and improved integration and cost-effectiveness for enhanced user experience.
A special discount of at least 50% for old customers would allow us to expand our services and request more resources.
 

Setup Cost

MuleSoft Composer is considered costly, especially in Brazil and India, with users recommending a 20%-30% price reduction.
Enterprise buyers find webMethods.io costly but valuable, offering flexibility and comprehensive solutions, particularly beneficial for large-scale enterprises.
 

Valuable Features

MuleSoft Composer offers Salesforce integration, ease of use, API sharing, prebuilt connectors, and effective data handling, monitoring, and notifications.
webMethods.io excels in seamless integration, user-friendliness, robust security, and scalability, offering efficient tools and reliable management for diverse needs.
It facilitates the exposure of around 235 services through our platform to feed various government entities across the entire country.
 

Categories and Ranking

MuleSoft Composer
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
13th
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Data Integration (27th)
webMethods.io
Ranking in Cloud Data Integration
7th
Ranking in Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (3rd), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (10th), API Management (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, the mindshare of MuleSoft Composer is 3.3%, down from 6.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 8.4%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

Prince Barai - PeerSpot reviewer
The prebuilt connectors save a lot of time and money, but the customer support and price must be improved
Our customer’s system is very old. We are trying to upgrade it. We are extracting data from the system and sending it to Salesforce. The product is a good option if we want to build process automation for data. It can be done quickly through the tool. We need not do coding and waste our time and efforts. The ease of learning depends on the person who is learning the product. It depends on whether they come from a developer background. It would be easy to learn if they have some experience in coding and have worked on integrations. I haven’t faced many challenges while scaling our integration solutions with MuleSoft Composer. The drag-and-drop interface has not impacted our project deployment time much. The customer support and price can be improved. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about MuleSoft Composer?
The way Composer organizes and manages integration processes is most beneficial. We can easily monitor what's running and what isn't and troubleshoot any data integration issues.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for MuleSoft Composer?
It's costly, especially for Indian clients. Reducing the price would help them penetrate the Indian market. A two-year license costs around seventy lakhs rupees. It's a considerable amount.
What needs improvement with MuleSoft Composer?
Configuration could be easier, but we were able to handle it. It seems that juniors find it challenging, but seniors like me know how to configure it properly. There are no issues. There is also on...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

MuleSoft Composer for Salesforce
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about MuleSoft Composer vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.