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 ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"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."
"Performance-wise, this solution is really good."
"Integration and mapping are easy, which is a major advantage."
"Straightforward development and deployment."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"Easy connectivity and easy integration."
"The solution offers multiple deployment options."
"The most valuable features of Mule ESB are its ease of use, documentation, ease to adapt to newer security and vulnerabilities, and a lot of help available. Additionally, there is a lot of flexibility, many patches available, and they provide APIs. They are a market standard."
"Mule ESB is a very easy-to-use and user-friendly solution."
"It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications."
"The solution improved my company by modernizing the way we offer services and improving the user experience."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"The images and size of the containers are too big and I think that they should be more lightweight."
"Today I probably wouldn't go for Message Broker because of the cost structure, support, and the whole ecosystem around IBM."
"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 good but they could have a better response time."
"Community editions need more attention."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvement in the generator for the DataWeave language so that it's a little more graphic."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"MuleSoft isn't as mature as some other integration technologies out there like IBM WebSphere. There's room for growth, and MuleSoft is working toward that."
"In order to meet the new trend of active metadata management, we need intelligent APIs that can retrieve new data designs and trigger actions over new findings without human intervention."
"Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason."
"In an upcoming release, I would like to see more additional concept for exception handling, batch processing, and increased integration with other application."
"There are some issues with both stability and scalability."
IBM WebSphere Message Broker is ranked 7th in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 4 reviews while Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) with 18 reviews. IBM WebSphere Message Broker is rated 7.0, while Mule ESB is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM WebSphere Message Broker writes "Easy to setup and deploy, with easy mapping, and it integrates well with MQ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Scaled easily, had good ROI and time to value, and didn't require taking care of the infrastructure". IBM WebSphere Message Broker is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, IBM BPM, IBM DataPower Gateway and IIS, whereas Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods Integration Server, Oracle Service Bus, Red Hat Fuse and OpenESB. See our IBM WebSphere Message Broker vs. Mule ESB report.
See our list of best ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) vendors.
We monitor all ESB (Enterprise Service Bus) 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.
