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.
"I recommend it for large enterprises but only for specific use cases. You need to have a relatively mature integration practice in your organization to leverage its capabilities fully."
"It allows us to avoid the need for consumers to understand multiple API protocols and security arrangements, and in some circumstances can reduce the impact of systems being unavailable."
"The integration with other tools is excellent. It integrates well with batch issues."
"IBM Integration Bus has a complete set of tools that are implemented between rules when it comes to run time, but it's not easy to understand."
"We use IBM Integration Bus for document conversions."
"This solution is very reliable and it is easy to learn."
"I consider the solution to be one of the most stable in the market."
"The product is usually very easy to deploy."
"The architecture based on events has several connectors which allow integration from external and internal applications of the company."
"We can use Java expressions anywhere in the flow."
"The most powerful feature is DataWeave, which is a powerful language where data can be transformed from one form into another."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature is the Salesforce integration."
"Mule Expression Language"
"The solution offers multiple deployment options."
"The version of the technology and current knowledge is a bit outdated."
"The memory footprint should be minimized."
"Performance can be an issue sometimes. The tool occasionally crashes due to memory-related problems. We've reported these issues to IBM, and they are actively working on improving the tooling experience."
"The price could be better. It would also be better if they simplified the code."
"It needs improvement in terms of technical support as well as in terms of integration of data mining. I am not convinced about many things in this solution, such as the conversion of the DFDL or copybook file, which is the conversion from a text file to XML. It is very complex. They should also provide more information about this solution in the IBM Knowledge Center. I can get a lot of information from the IBM Knowledge Center about DataStage, but I don't get that much information about IBM Integration Bus. There is hardly any information even on the internet and various channels such as YouTube. They can provide good step-by-step documentation based on a company's requirements. It would be really helpful. My company is mainly looking for data mining and communicating with multiple servers. IBM Integration Bus is good for communicating with multiple servers, but it needs improvement for XML conversion and data mining. We have a lot of old systems that use XML."
"The product does not provide API management."
"Its integration with Cloud Pak components could be better."
"Today, the IBM business rule engine, the DataPower is outside the Enterprise Service Bus. It's sold as a different feature or application. If it could be integrated, then it's able to handle a lot more of what we are doing now rather than just have a stateless ESB that you can't do much on, and a set of normal business rules."
"Limitation on external subscribers to listen to the messages on the bus."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"It's not easy to troubleshoot and we still can't make it work."
"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."
"It needs more samples. Also, the dependency on Maven should be removed."
"Community editions need more attention."
IBM Integration Bus is ranked 1st in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 63 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 45 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 IBM WebSphere Message Broker, Oracle Service Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM DataPower Gateway and Red Hat Fuse, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, Red Hat Fuse, webMethods Integration Server 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.