Mule ESB Reviews

We use Mule ESB for integrating with third-party vendors. Mule ESB bridge between internal systems and third-party systems. Additionally, we use it for enterprise, web, and APIs services.

The most valuable features of Mule ESB are its ease of use, documentation, ease to adapt to newer security and vulnerabilities, and a lot of help available. Additionally, there is a lot of flexibility, many patches available, and they provide APIs. They are a market standard.

The price of Mule ESB could improve.

I have been using Mule ESB for approximately four years.

Mule ESB is a stable solution.

The scalability of Mule ESB is very good. 

Mule ESB has been in use since 2008. It has been a long-running tool and application and has supported multiple phases.

Mule ESB is easy to set up, configure, and change the configuration. It only takes a couple of days to make any changes the client asks for. The longest project we had using Mule ESB was one week.

We do the implementation and support of Mule ESB. The solution is easily maintained and manageable.

Mule ESB is a costly solution. We pay approximately $80,000 annually for the system. The cost of the number of instances, annual subscription, and cloud hosting services are expensive.

We are thinking about moving away from Mule ESB and using Red Hat because of the high costs of Mule ESB. However, Mule ESB is a good solution.

We propose Mule ESB in terms of solutions for any kind of enterprise service bus application.

I rate Mule ESB a nine out of ten.

Mule ESB excels in orchestrating workflows and seamlessly integrating with business implementations while keeping technical details hidden. It also offers protocol transformation, converting between different protocols, and supports service exposure to customers while maintaining technical invisibility.

We utilize data transformation capabilities extensively. 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. For smaller data transformations, we rely on DSPS.  

One notable drawback is the user experience aspect, particularly in terms of self-service functionality within Mule ESB. It would be beneficial if users could navigate the UI easily without extensive training or learning curves.

I have been using Mule ESB for the last five years.

The solution is generally stable. We ensure proper sizing and memory management, which helps avoid glitches and slowdowns.

Mule ESB is scalable because it can be easily scaled in a cloud deployment and is containerized, making scaling up or down straightforward. This shouldn't be a major concern nowadays.

MuleSoft's customer support is excellent.

Positive

Setting up Mule ESB is relatively easy, although it depends on factors like account categorization and whether you're using Docker or Kubernetes. 

Typically, installation and configuration take around three to four days initially, but subsequent deployments or updates are quicker. One engineer or developer is usually sufficient for deployment, but implementation complexity may vary based on the use case.

The ROI of Mule ESB is greatly influenced by the design and governance of the solution, particularly focusing on reusability and adherence to microservices architecture. Properly designing and implementing these aspects can significantly enhance ROI.

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.

Working with Mule ESB has taught us the value of experience with different ESBs, making it easier to adapt to new solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We use this solution when we have integrations and need to connect to SAP or to some Q mechanisms like ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ. The applications we develop are for administrators. We are customers of Mule ESB. 

The HTTP, SAP and RabbitMQ connectors that we use are very easy to connect. The language for writing the transformations is also very simple. This is a useful solution. The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily. 

The main issue we currently have is that the version we are using will not be supported for much longer and we'll have to migrate to the newer version. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

We use this solution every day and it is stable.

The solution is scalable although we don't need to scale for now. 

The support is pretty good. We raise a ticket when we need something and the response time is good. 

Positive

We had some initial hiccups following deployment, but since then it's been good. We deployed in-house. 

Licensing costs are relatively expensive. 

The main difference I noticed between Mule and Red Hat Fuse was the licensing cost. Mule ESB was a more expensive solution. I haven't worked much on other ESBs but when I compare it with Spring Boot or other similar technologies, Mule is better in that it doesn't require much code writing.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

This is an enterprise service bus, and it is mainly used for transferring data. For example, it is used when System A has the data that needs to be sent to System B. 

Our use case is transferring the enterprise data from one enterprise to a different enterprise. We use different types of connectors or connections to get the data, transform the data, and send it to a system. Almost all the integrations work in the same manner.

It can be deployed on-premise, but nowadays, most of us prefer cloud-based solutions.

It is easy to use and easy to understand. 

It is easily deployable and manageable. It has microservices-based architecture, which means that you can deploy the solution based on your needs, and you can manage the solution very easily.

It should have some amount of logging.

I've been using this solution for almost two years.

It is stable.

It can scale based on your needs. It is scalable vertically and horizontally.

We have used it in many projects. Its usage might increase. It depends on the high-level management. If new products are coming, they're going to use it for sure.

Their response is based on the subscription. If you are experiencing any production-related issues, they're immediately available. 

There are various levels of tech support, and the service depends upon the level of support to which you have subscribed. Titanium support is at the highest level.

We have used webMethods, which is an on-prem solution. 

For a cloud-based deployment, there is no need for us to manage anything. It is directly deployable. We build and deploy it. That's all. 

For an on-prem deployment, a lot more installation is required, but it is a very easy process.

We can do an on-prem deployment ourselves. Developers mainly focus on the development aspect of the solutions, and admins manage all deployments.

We didn't evaluate other options.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is the best integration platform for those who are looking to implement or are going for API-based architecture and microservices-based architecture.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We use this solution to get data.

The stability could be improved.

We have been using this solution for about two years.

The scalability is good, and I rate it a nine out of ten. We have about 20 users using this solution. We do not have plans to increase the number of users, as it depends on the number of use cases we deploy. We have developers, managers and business users using this solution.

Technical support comes with the subscription plan.

We used Oracle ten years ago.

The setup is straightforward. It was a fast deployment and took one week.

The subscription is annual.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I am a solution architect where I design solutions by leveraging integration tools, low-code platforms, and BPM platforms. We are using Mule EBS for transformation purposes.

Mule allows us to transform our data into our desired outcome and then translate it. This allows it to be moved forward for further processing.

This tool has exceptional API management and integration connectors in addition to multiple out of the box connectors. 

The UI is good. From a development perspective, it's pretty easy and pretty intuitive for the developers to work with. We have fresh graduates who have started picking up MuleSoft. Its user interface is pretty intuitive.

We would like the ability to use our own code. This would allow us to develop customizations with ease. Additionally, it would be nice to have more analytics or insights on the exchanged information between databases.

I am working on my third project that utilizes Mule.

The solution is quite stable. We have not experienced any stability related issues as of now.

We have not had any issues regarding up-scaling and other things. We are in the process of increasing the usage of Mule so that it can take up to two thousand requests per unit minute.

The last time I raised a ticket with them where we needed additional guidance, they were pretty good and responsive. On one of my previous projects that I worked with where we needed some information or we needed some additional guidance from them, we were able to collaborate with them and solve the issue pretty quickly.

The initial setup was straightforward as we chose to go with the Mule cloud where the infrastructure was taken care of by them. We only needed to ensure connectivity between on-premise databases/systems and Mule cloud.

Because it's their cloud, the setup is much easier. It would be interesting to see what the setup is like for an on-premise or hybrid environment. It might be a completely different setup. It would probably be more complex because you have to go through certain process to ensure the compliance and the security standards of the organization are met, and that the connectivity is established.

We looked in to using Apache Camel and TIBCO.

It’s a pretty good tool to have it when you try to go with a microservices type of an architecture where you want to decouple your systems and where you want all the systems to talk to each other, share that knowledge, and create those experiences that you want as part of your digital transformation journey. This tool perfectly fits that. It's a good tool to have as part of your digital transformation journey.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.

At the moment, we are using MuleSoft 4, for which I am a certified developer. We use version 4.3. 

We can do very fast development of the orchestrations of MuleSoft. The design patents which we use for integration patents are also a nice feature. 

The solution also offers multiple deployment options. I like the endpoint time manager and the access policies. 

In respect of the UI or the interface, a concept such as that offered by Microgateway would be preferable. We basically use ESB for the gateways. Yet, sometimes when we make use of on-premises standard applications, we require a Microgateway or sidecar proxy products or sidecar proxy-type gateways. This should be addressed. 

A Microgateway type of application should be available for lending support to MuleSoft. When it comes to standalone applications, it would be better if a sidecar proxy were available, rather than the security models being implemented inside the application. The sidecar proxies make things very simple in respect of microservices.

It would be great to see implementing security modules as a feature. 

I have been working with MuleSoft for the past seven years. 

Our current requirements are not great. The version we currently use, 4.3, is much more stable at present. It has good stability. 

The scalability is good. It varies with the request I receive or the application size. It can be done with much ease. 

Technical support is more in the purview of developers. 

The installation time depends on the product being deployed and the size of the application. What we are using at the moment would not require installation of more than an hour. We usually would receive a zip file that we would insert into the server, at which point we could start with the deployment. We have a command for the installation of the licenses and even this depends on the type of job involved. That is all. I would put the installation time at no more than 35 to 40 minutes. 

I have done the installation on my own many times. I have this product on my personal laptop, as well and usually install it on my small machines. 

As with our other applications, MuleSoft is on-premises, but we make use of a hybrid strategy involving the use of an endpoint cloud and agent. While our initial deployment was on-premises, our control plane is on endpoint in the cloud. 

I am a MuleSoft developer and am working for a client. The company which I work for is a partner with MuleSoft.

I would recommend MuleSoft to others. 

While what we are using for our current project is more than sufficient, it would be nice to see Microgateway added as a feature. 

I rate the solution as an eight out of ten. 

We use this solution to integrate with other software applications.

Now, we are running almost 50 integration APIs, and will have over 1 million billable transactions.

The solution can be deployed on cloud or on-premises. I'm using version 4.2.

It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications.

Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason.

I have been using this solution for over nine years.

The stability is great compared to IBM.

The scalability is amazing. You can increase the horizontal perspective or the increase the vertical perspective. It depends on your business needs.

We have a dedicated support person from the MuleSoft tech support.

Development is very easy. Initial setup took two days. We needed to open a firewall, download the necessary things, clean the server, file storage, network storage, and we needed to work on the installation of the servers.

For deployment, we had one person for admin and one person for development.

I would rate this solution seven out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution for those who want to use it. It will depend on the customer's needs and what they want to use it for.