We performed a comparison between IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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."It is a scalable solution...The setup is easy."
"The solution has good integration."
"Message Broker is valuable because most of the applications are using MQ. Even in my current engagement, the few applications which I audit to onboard the bank are using MQ."
"It has many interfaces and you can connect to any backend source that has another format, and convert it to the desired format."
"The most valuable feature of IBM WebSphere Message Broker is the ability to facilitate communication with legacy systems, offering a multitude of great capabilities. For example, if there is a mainframe system in place with a web service serving as the front end. In that case, the solution enables efficient protocol transformations to convert all request payloads into a format that the legacy systems can accept, rendering the integration and transformation processes seamless and highly effective."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"We only use the basic features, but the most valuable one for us is the Publish-subscribe pattern."
"Most of our use cases are for Salesforce. So, the connectors for Salesforce have been really helpful. They've made development two times faster."
"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."
"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."
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"This tool has exceptional API management and integration connectors in addition to multiple out of the box connectors."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"I like that Mule ESB provides fast and good technical support."
"The user interface is designed mainly for experts, much in the way a BPM or another integration tool is."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"It is currently a weighty product."
"Stability and pricing are areas with shortcomings that need improvement."
"I know that Message Broker was a very tightly copied product with another IBM product, that is, IBM MQ. I would like to have a little bit more decoupling from the IBM MQ because it should not be a prerequisite for IBM WebSphere Message Broker usage."
"There is some lag in the GUI. There have been some performance issues and maybe it's because of the application data."
"Technical support is very slow and needs to be improved."
"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."
"It would be much more beneficial if the solution included AI and business process management."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."
"It would be beneficial if users could navigate the UI easily without extensive training or learning curves."
"The solution's setup needs to be a bit more straightforward and its support needs to respond faster."
"There are some features on the commercial version of the solution that would be great if they were on the community version. Additionally, if they added more authorization features it would be helpful."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 8th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 11 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.8, while Mule ESB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "For new applications that are being onboarded, we engage this tool so the data can flow as required but there's some lag in the GUI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM DataPower Gateway, IBM BPM and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and JBoss ESB. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker 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.
