We performed a comparison between Aurea CX Messenger and Mule ESB based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution offers excellent stability."
"ESB: Provides all kind of possibilities to resolve business needs. A lot of ready to use services plus custom Java services. I used a lot of them all."
"The Messenger Broker is a really good feature."
"The solution is highly scalable, this is very important for us. It can handle a lot of messages."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that it is very easy to develop. Most of it is graphical, but we also have the option to add any custom call that you need."
"Once it is started, we don't see any problems on a day to day basis."
"The solution improved my company by modernizing the way we offer services and improving the user experience."
"The setup is straightforward."
"Mule ESB is a very easy-to-use and user-friendly solution."
"It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications."
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"Mule ESB has a user-friendly design, and everything is in one place. The API and architecture are popular right now. Also, MuleSoft has a large and supportive online community."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"It should include/add more services with the product as per market demand. It should include custom Java services developed by any organization or provide a platform where users/developers can share ideas/custom services, etc."
"I don't know if the last version has the cloud option, but maybe that could be good. That could be something that is included."
"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."
"Community editions need more attention."
"We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing."
"The stability could be improved."
"The solution isn't as stable as we'd like it to be. There are some ongoing issues and therefore Mule has to provide frequent patches. Mule's core IP should be more stable overall."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"The price of Mule ESB could improve."
"The Anypoint platform consumes a lot of memory, and it would be great for developers if it were more lightweight."
Aurea CX Messenger is ranked 12th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 7 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 45 reviews. Aurea CX Messenger is rated 9.0, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Aurea CX Messenger writes "Lightweight and efficient solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". Aurea CX Messenger is most compared with TIBCO Enterprise Message Service, Apache Kafka and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and Red Hat Fuse. See our Aurea CX Messenger vs. Mule ESB report.
See our list of best Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
