We performed a comparison between IBM Integration Bus and Mule ESB based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Both solutions receive high marks from reviewers. IBM Integration Bus has a slight advantage over Mule ESB due to its flexibility and user-friendly interface.
"The cost is pretty cheap, compared to what else is available in the market."
"The solution's features are all quite useful. We use all of them."
"We use IBM Integration Bus for document conversions."
"IBM Integration Bus is a very strong tool."
"I have found the inbound and outbound adapter confirmations valuable."
"The product is usually very easy to deploy."
"I have found IBM Integration Bus is very useful because it can integrate multiple backend applications."
"The most valuable feature is the API integration."
"The most valuable feature for Mule is the number of connectors that are available."
"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."
"The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot."
"Mule ESB is a very easy-to-use and user-friendly solution."
"The solution has a good graphical interface."
"The product offers a community edition that is free of cost."
"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 cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"We decided to move away from IBM Integration Bus for IT technical refreshments."
"The tracing and debugging features are not up to date with more modern technology available."
"The performance needs to be enhanced when working with the Toolkit."
"IBM does not support orchestration, which is how they designed it, and other BPM tools in the market support orchestration. If they merged the BPM capability into this product, then it would be a better solution."
"Its documentation is currently lacking. We have different environments where we use our configuration services, but we are not able to find documentation about how to deploy the local code to the server and how to set it up on a server level. I would like more documents from IBM that explain which variables should be in your machine while building a project, and when you deploy the code into the server, what should be their values. There are some variable values. I could not find such documentation. While working on a project, I developed the code on a local machine, and while deploying the code to our test environment, I made a couple of mistakes. We had to change some values at the server level, but we couldn't find any documentation regarding this, which made the task difficult."
"I believe there is room for improvement in the pricing structure to make it more accessible."
"I would like to see more metered rest and API support. IBM is already working on it on Version 11, but it still needs improvement."
"They should add connectors to banking applications and other specific industries."
"One area that could be improved is the way that policies are propagated when APIs are moved from one environment to another. It's an issue, but when you develop and test the rest APIs in a lower environment and need to move them, there's a propagation process. This process moves certain aspects of the APIs, like the basic features. But when we move them, the policies don't always move with them. The policies should be able to move so we don't have to redo them manually. There are some APIs we use, but it's a bit tedious."
"In an upcoming release, I would like to see more additional concept for exception handling, batch processing, and increased integration with other application."
"The stability could be improved."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."
"The price of Mule ESB could improve."
"It should have some amount of logging."
"It needs more samples. Also, the dependency on Maven should be removed."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 65 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews. IBM Integration Bus is rated 8.0, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Integration Bus writes "Scalable solution with efficient integration features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". IBM Integration Bus is most compared with webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus, IBM WebSphere Message Broker, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server, Red Hat Fuse and IBM DataPower Gateway. See our IBM Integration Bus 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.