MuleSoft Anypoint Platform Reviews

Mule Anypoint Platform is used for the integration of different services or customer databases with Microsoft solutions.

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.

It would be better if we had a clearer view of the solution's future releases. Mule Anypoint Platform is migrating to a new JDK, and the old JDK won't be supported within a year. Currently, we do not have a calendar or scheduler about when all the connectors will support the new JDK 17.

I have been using Mule Anypoint Platform for about one year.

Mule Anypoint Platform is a pretty stable solution.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

For the moment, smaller clients would consider choosing MuleSoft as their integration platform. As a rule, the Mule Anypoint Platform is more suitable for middle or large clients.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

MuleSoft provides custom support for every client. You can list your account and have open tickets if you have any problems. We have pretty solid technical support from MuleSoft.

Positive

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight out of ten.

With ready API, the solution can be deployed within a few minutes. If you don't have an API at all, a day will be enough to deploy a very simple but useful API from scratch.

Currently, MuleSoft is moving from the license type to the pay-as-you-go type. The solution's pricing, as per the old approach, is expensive. That is the main reason why we don't have a lot of small-sized customers. With MuleSoft's new approach, we will have new opportunities to integrate small businesses.

The solution's API Designer and API Manager have improved the management of our client's already established APIs. The most valuable features of the solution are Design Center and Runtime Manager. Mule Anypoint Platform provides some basic security approaches, including HTTPS protocol and secure configuration opportunities.

My recommendation to users is to use already described or already propagated best practices that help very much in development. The best advice for developers is to be part of the community. MuleSoft has a great community, including different channels or meetups that could help you a lot in certain cases. When you have some problems, you can address any developers, and they will be ready to talk to you.

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

We transfer data between systems. We are to save the data to make the communication between systems synchronous. We use Anypoint MQ for making the communication synchronous. The source integration component will place the data into Anypoint MQ, and the target company will take it from there.

Because our customers are moving from on-premise to cloud, it's mostly costs that have been saved and nothing else.

The most valuable feature is the messaging system.

Anypoint MQ is not a pure messaging product. There are so many solutions like this, but this is not as mature as those products. The other MQ products have the capability of reprocessing and maintaining the persistence of the data. They can handle large volumes and large messages, but Anypoint MQ doesn't have those capabilities.

It can only handle a maximum size of 10 megabytes. The other MQ products have a larger capacity. IBM MQ can handle 100 megabytes of data or even solid gigabytes. This doesn't have that capability.

This solution has a lot of gaps. It's not a pure MQ product. We have sort of exposed this product with different protocols like TCP. Also, it has to evaluate these capabilities compared to the other market products.

I have been using this solution for four years. The solution is used on an iPaaS cloud provided by MuleSoft.

The stability of Anypoint is not as mature as other MQ products.

The scalability is under the hood. It is AWS, and it is reliable. It's not user-based. It is automation-based and IT products-based. We have deployed five or six individuals using Anypoint MQ.

This is not a pure provider. It is just a tactical solution cloud. In the long run, we want to go back to square one and use other MQ products like ActiveMQ or IBM MQ because of Anypoint's limitations. For instance, it can't handle more than 10 megabytes of data, and it can't hold more than 50 persistent messages.

Deployment and maintenance are automated. There is an initial automation that is required.

Technical support is good.

We previously used a stable solution. We moved to this product thinking that the cost would be reduced, but things are not working as expected. We plan to go back to using the old solution.

Initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment is a cakewalk.

You don't need an explicit skill set for deployment. Anyone can do it.

I can't give you a straightforward answer because sometimes it depends on the usage. If you're going to have fewer than 5 million messages, it is free of cost. If you're going to have more than 5 million messages, you will be charged $100 per month.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10. 

We thought that this was a pure demo product. We moved from IBM to MuleSoft thinking that it would work like IBM, but that's not what happened.

My advice is to try to evaluate the product beforehand and see whether it fits your needs and requirements. Check if it covers all of your use cases. Otherwise, it won't work.

There are a lot of MQ products on the market, but this is suitable for small scale customers and not for large scale.

We haven't switched solutions yet, but the plan is to switch because of this product's limitations. It doesn't cover all the use cases.

Our company's clients are all from different domains. We use the platform for integration and API management.

I have a background in Java and in the past, there were some issues whenever we had to integrate with the applications. You had to get the business logic and sometimes it took months to integrate the record. With Anypoint Platform, it is very easy to do that. You just need to do a small drag-drop and a small transformation which saves a lot of time.

The most valuable feature is the variety of characters Anypoint Platform has. It is very scalable and customizable.

In terms of improvement, the deployment time could be a little shorter. Other platforms such as Boomi or SnapLogic are much faster to develop. Anypoint Platform has added the option to generate flow online, but it still needs some improvement. It should give better control over account management. Mule Anypoint Platform includes an API Manager and it has a strong ESB. However, the API management capabilities of Apigee offer more advanced and dynamic features for managing APIs. 

Additionally, Mule should work on reducing the complexity of their platform and providing more flexibility for users. Those who are not well-versed in Java will have a hard time with the development of Anypoint Platform. While it offers connectors, the connectors have limitations. It should offer features that can be customized by users, allowing for greater adaptability, and offer customization options within these connectors, to make it easier for users to tailor them to specific needs. Platforms such as Dell Omni and SnapLogic already provide solutions for these problems and allow users to easily plug them in and start working.

I have been using Mule Anypoint Platform for eight years.

I would rate the stability of the platform a seven out of ten. There were situations where specific solutions or connectors were not available, and the support team suggested using workarounds. They advised me to create my own ideas and come up with a solution. This lack of immediate solutions can be a limitation of the platform.

I would rate the scalability of the platform an eight out of ten. There are approximately 300 users of Anypoint Platform at our company and we plan on expanding.

The technical support is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have previously used Apache Camel and Dell Boomi but I am also currently using Ab Initio due to client requirements and the need for a faster time-to-market for clients' projects or products. Using a team of ten members, it took around 24 months to complete the migration of approximately 2,000 APIs with Anypoint Platform. Ab Initio only required nine months to accomplish a similar task.

I would give a seven out of ten for the easiness of the initial setup. The deployment takes about two minutes which is acceptable. We handle deployment ourselves. We use tools such as Jenkins or Bamboo and it can be time-consuming since it initially involves scripting.

In terms of pricing, Anypoint Platform is on the expensive side. I would rate the costliness an eight out of ten.

I would definitely recommend Anypoint platform to anyone who is considering using it. Its main flaw is the costliness. Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We are customers of Mule.

This is a good platform for designing, flowing out APIs, and then doing API-based integrations. It also offers a lot of adapters for commercial products like Salesforce, SAP and the like. It has good monitoring abilities. If you use it for API management, security monitoring and things like that, it works well at the experience API layer.

One of the issues I have is that Jira tries to be more than an API-based integration platform and it encourages writing of Java-based applications underneath the cover, even though it's not meant to be an app service, so it's slow. That's how they try to sell it. The solution has three layers; the experience layer, the process layer and the system layer. The system layer is used to connect the systems; the process layer can be used to create processes like transformations, logic, etc.; and the experience layer is used to interface with whoever's going to consume it. The problem is that the process layer is not efficient. It acts like an interpreter and interpreters are slow, and if you give it some path like converting to a 100 kilobyte file, it takes 15 times more memory than if I just wrote a program 

When you try using it for the processing layer, it doesn't work well. We ended up pulling back to .NET for our own internal microservices that do a lot of processing. We use the .NET microservices as the process layer, because we know it's faster. Then we plug it into Mule to experience the API interface and that's when we need to make a choice, do we put our system APIs right through our microservice, or do we use Mule as a system API layer, but then let it interface with our process API. We just had to make choices.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution has threading, but it has the interpreter feature which I think slows it down.

The technical support is not great and documentation is sparse. You really have to rely on the community, more experienced MuleSoft users, who know the strengths and weaknesses, rather than relying on the company. You can get an architect to assist with implementation.

It's an expensive solution and then you have to try and find a MuleSoft engineer, which is even harder.

The issue seems to be the way they've positioned the product, advocating the experience layer, process layer and system layer through Mule. As it competes with the likes of webMethods, it rates as an eight out of 10. As an end-to-end solution, however, I would rate it a five at best. 

The solution enables searching, publishing, consumption, and subscription of APIs via a portal.

The product is robust. It is Java-based. We use the little resources we have to get things done. The tool’s API management capabilities are excellent. It is a rock-solid product. The tool has a lot of dashboards. We can monitor performance and scalability.

The product is expensive.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

We can have multiple instances and scale them dynamically. The solution also has load-balancing capabilities. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. We can just define our APIs and start building them. The tool is mostly deployed on the cloud. It can be deployed on public, private, and hybrid clouds. The deployment does not take much time. After the testing, if everything is fine, the tool can be deployed.

Boomi is suitable for small and medium-sized companies. Mule Anypoint Platform is suitable for small and medium businesses, but it is expensive.

I am a partner of Salesforce. I tried to understand why Boomi is stronger in the market than Mule Anypoint Platform. However, I could not find any disadvantages of Mule Anypoint Platform. The product has been in the market for a long time.

It has also introduced AI features. It can take issues and divert them based on dynamic data. ROI is not the only factor we consider. We must also consider scalability, smooth and hassle-free use, time to production, and time taken for testing. We can monitor things in real-time. I recommend the solution to enterprises. It is a good solution to migrate from TIBCO.

The tool has an API manager with a dedicated console to control the policies and everything else. Everything is integrated. We can call relevant data on the go. Nothing is hard-coded. If we want to get data from a particular source, we can automatically get it based on the AI input.

Overall, I rate the tool an eight to nine out of ten.

We're using Anypoint MQ for messaging, in different types: from SAP to third party systems, global third party systems, etc. There's a hundred of them.

It's extremely expensive to change things in Anypoint MQ, e.g. we have to go through either Accenture or IBM. IBM will do the changes, but the actual change we ask for costs huge amounts of money. I'm not sure why that is, or whether that's just a contract, but they always complain about multiple changes, regression testing, etc. It sounds like it's a very long winded task just to make a simple change. This is an area for improvement for Anypoint MQ.

Another problem we have with Anypoint MQ is that some of our end systems cannot cope with the throughput. If we put too many messages down to it, then there's a delay to send those messages onto the system that can't take them in as fast, and this means that the queue blows. We have either a 40 gigabyte or 40 megabyte queue space, but if we send 7,000 messages which need to be combined and sent out, the queue blows, because it just can't manage that throughput because the output is so slow. With the memory, we don't have a big enough queue to cope, so there's that problem.

If there was a way around that problem, we could send it. What we need to do is to be able to send 50,000 messages an hour or more, which we can do SAP to SAP, but we haven't found a solution on how to cope with sending it to Anypoint MQ because it blows up, so that's the big problem we have.

What we'd like to see in the next release of Anypoint MQ is for the issue of slow output of messages to be solved. Even if we wrote into disc, e.g. the disc space is cheap, so if you could write the messages to disc and then just feed them out and when the queue is caught up with itself, that would solve our problems. It means we could send MuleSoft all the messages in one go, and then it could drip feed them out.

The additional feature we'd like to see in Anypoint MQ is to be able to write the message queue to disc, to allow for ample queueing of messages, because currently, the output to a particular system is slow.

We've been dealing with Anypoint MQ for 20 years now.

Anypoint MQ has been stable, and it has not caused us any problems.

Anypoint MQ is a scalable solution.

We have not contacted the technical support team of Anypoint MQ, because we have our own internal third parties to deal with any issue that could arise from the solution.

What we've noticed in Anypoint MQ is that it's expensive to change things.

We evaluated Apache Kafka.

I thought we had a problem with our queuing software, and it turned out that it's not the software itself, it's the third party. We're passing the messages on to the third party, and they can only receive it at a certain rate, so we had to drop the Anypoint MQ software down, but it's not actually the MQ software, rather it's the actual third party application that was causing the problem.

As I'm working on the SAP side, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to discuss about the features I like most about the solution.

My advice to others looking into implementing the solution is to first look at what you're trying to achieve, because you've got Anypoint MQ as your queueing software, and then you've got the Apache Kafka software as well, and they do different things. I didn't realize this when I started looking, because I was looking at Kafka thinking that would be the answer to our problem, but it wasn't, because it looks great if you want instantaneous messaging and loads of bandwidth, but you need to do the interpretation of messages.

I'd say, look at what you want it for, because Anypoint MQ seems to be as good as the other options, to be fair. I'd also tell them about the problem I've had with it, and that's not just going to be a problem with Anypoint MQ alone, because I think other systems will have the same problem, e.g. the queuing problem. I'll tell others to really, really look at the application. Anypoint MQ seems to be a standard application, and it's acceptable.

My overall impression of Anypoint MQ in terms of rating it, is seven out of ten, but that's just based on my feeling. I don't have any quantifiable reasons on why I'm giving it that score.

We are using the solution for building business logic. It's like having a particular private cloud service that we can host on our premises, which is less cost-effective than Microsoft Logic Apps. It provides storage and data integration in a very good manner.

The solution's deployment and proxy processes are very good.

Although the solution's proxy design and process are good, it faces connecting issues because it lacks data integration. You have to filter the data before integrating it.

I have been using Mule Anypoint Platform for around one year.

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform a nine out of ten for stability.

We have to reintegrate it and create another structure on the same file instead of modifying the base one. We have to create other versions also. The solution's scalability is questionable compared to Microsoft Logic Apps.

Around 10 to 20 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform a six or seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution's technical support is not so good, but they are trying to provide on-time support. They take around 24 to 48 business hours to provide the solutions.

I rate the solution’s technical support eight and a half out of ten.

Positive

On a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate Mule Anypoint Platform ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

The solution's deployment takes around five to seven minutes maximum.

Firstly, we have to understand how we can integrate with the clients provided, then build the proxies of APIs and deploy from Anypoint Studio to CloudHub. A single person was required to deploy the solution.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing as four or five out of ten.

As it is free of cost and we have to take an enterprise license, there is probably no fee.

For the big layer ones, Mule Anypoint Platform will be better than Microsoft Logic Apps or any other integration platform.

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

I would recommend Anypoint MQ to customers using MuleSoft as an integration platform. Anypoint MQ is a pure messaging product. The solution is scalable, and its performance is quite good.

The solution's licensing model is expensive and could be improved.

I've recently started using Anypoint MQ.

The solution’s technical support is good, but they should work on their response time.

Neutral

Anypoint MQ is easy to configure. However, it is not that easy when compared to Apache Kafka.

If customers using open-source integration or any springboard integrations need JMS, they must carefully evaluate the product. I would recommend Anypoint MQ only for MuleSoft customers. I won't recommend the solution to customers using a different integration platform because there's a cost associated with the product.

Overall, I rate Anypoint MQ an eight out of ten.