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."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."
"SDM: User-friendly tool which allows for a seamless approach to performing hotfixes, if required."
"The solution offers excellent stability."
"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."
"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."
"The connectors help to connect with a variety of applications."
"The most valuable feature of Mule ESB is data transformation, i.e. our interacting with different systems and orchestrating for our business needs."
"I'm not using ESB directly. It is the integration layer, so it's running under the hood. However, the conversion and transformation performance is excellent. Anypoint Enterprise Security is also solid."
"The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"I like that it's user-friendly. Compared to other ESBs, I find it easier to use. I like it better than other ESBs. I like the connectors, which make calling the APIs through the routers easier."
"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."
"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."
"You should not hurry with upgrades without testing the whole product completely."
"The solution needs to improve support for new, more recent protocols on the API."
"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."
"The improvement is that it should be on the cloud and use web services."
"Aurea CX Messenger could improve by making better use of the new APIs"
"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."
"I would like to see support for BPM in the next release of this solution."
"Community editions need more attention."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
"Lacking some connectors that could be included."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"We would like to have a built-in logging framework in which we can do auditing."
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 46 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 Apache Kafka, IBM MQ, TIBCO Enterprise Message Service and WSO2 Enterprise Integrator, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, Red Hat Fuse and webMethods Integration Server. 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.