We performed a comparison between Mule ESB and OpenESB 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 architecture based on events has several connectors which allow integration from external and internal applications of the company."
"I am impressed with the product's connectors and scalability."
"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 connectivity the solution provides is excellent. There are often too many systems that we have to integrate and this helps with that."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"What Mule provides out-of-box is a sufficient product."
"The transformation and the data format are the features that I like the most."
"The setup is straightforward."
"OpenESB pushes the organization to clearly define service boundaries and interfaces. So it motives the business and the development teams to clearly define their business services and processes they want to implement. OpenESB supports fine and coarse-grain granularity for the services and supports top-down and bottom-up approaches for the services, processes definition, and composition."
"One of the most valuable features is being able to implement business processes while keeping track of the design from BPMN to a BPEL Implementation."
"The core is very stable."
"The process-oriented solution allows you to define choreography and orchestration."
"It should have some amount of logging."
"Limitation on external subscribers to listen to the messages on the bus."
"The initial setup could be more straightforward."
"Mule ESB could be more user-friendly. I think users must learn about the architecture before they start coding. The price could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an EDIFACT integration."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"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."
"The solution's setup needs to be a bit more straightforward and its support needs to respond faster."
"The payment system needs improvement."
"Regarding its management, a web console being able to synchronize distributed instances would be great."
"Cloud deployment is weak and needs to be improved."
"The documentation needs to be better."
"The documentation of the product must be improved. It could be tricky to find the right documentation on a topic since the documentation is spread in many places. I advise the new joiner to contact the community to get entry points and additional documentation. Tutorial and Video must be present to take up the product."
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 46 reviews while OpenESB is ranked 13th in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 4 reviews. Mule ESB is rated 8.0, while OpenESB is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenESB writes "Enables us to define the business process and integrate it with other software". Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, webMethods Integration Server and Red Hat Fuse, whereas OpenESB is most compared with WSO2 Enterprise Integrator and Oracle Service Bus. See our Mule ESB vs. OpenESB 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.