Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Mule ESB vs Oracle Service Bus vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.2
Mule ESB ROI is challenging to calculate but favorable with effective design, despite high licensing costs affecting returns.
Sentiment score
6.7
Oracle Service Bus enhances operational efficiency, providing cost savings, adaptability, scalability, and improved problem-solving without direct ROI.
Sentiment score
7.1
webMethods.io delivers rapid ROI through cost savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity, depending on specific implementations.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.6
Mule ESB support is praised for expertise, but response times vary with some users needing more comprehensive solutions.
Sentiment score
6.3
Oracle Service Bus support receives mixed reviews, with responsiveness varying by local versus global support and cloud services.
Sentiment score
6.6
webMethods.io's customer service is praised for responsiveness, but users note occasional delays and desire improved technical support communication.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Mule ESB ensures high scalability, suitable for enterprises, enabling seamless cloud deployment and accommodating extensive user growth effectively.
Sentiment score
7.0
Oracle Service Bus is scalable, excelling in enterprise scenarios but facing challenges with memory, complexity, and cloud scalability.
Sentiment score
7.2
webMethods.io is praised for its scalability in cloud and on-premises environments, with some licensing constraints noted.
There are dependencies on the Java version and application being used.
Vertically, scalability is fine, however, I have not expanded horizontally with the product yet.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Mule ESB is generally stable, especially in newer versions, but issues exist with large files and resource demands.
Sentiment score
7.9
Oracle Service Bus is highly stable and reliable, often rated 8 or 9 for stability by users.
Sentiment score
7.6
webMethods.io is generally stable and reliable, with minor issues in specific modules and cloud version maturity needed.
I rate the stability of the product as eight out of ten.
There are some issues like the tool hanging or the need for additional jars when exposing web services.
 

Room For Improvement

Mule ESB requires better documentation, stable releases, improved connectors, coding features, and performance enhancements, despite high memory and licensing costs.
Oracle Service Bus requires improvements in logging, error handling, integration, documentation, installation, security, scalability, and modernization to enhance usability.
webMethods.io needs clearer documentation, better scalability, intuitive interfaces, and improved integration and cost-effectiveness for enhanced user experience.
This can happen due to legacy systems that might not allow the use of microservices.
A special discount of at least 50% for old customers would allow us to expand our services and request more resources.
 

Setup Cost

Mule ESB is costly for SMEs despite a free version, due to licenses and additional fees for certain features.
Oracle Service Bus pricing is high with licensing complexity, but valuable in bundles and suitable for large enterprises.
Enterprise buyers find webMethods.io costly but valuable, offering flexibility and comprehensive solutions, particularly beneficial for large-scale enterprises.
 

Valuable Features

Mule ESB excels in flexibility, integration, user-friendly design, and scalability, featuring diverse deployment and robust support.
Oracle Service Bus simplifies integration with diverse applications through comprehensive adapters, robust data handling, and a user-friendly interface.
webMethods.io excels in seamless integration, user-friendliness, robust security, and scalability, offering efficient tools and reliable management for diverse needs.
The main advantage of Oracle Service Bus is the possibility to integrate different systems using workflows and different architectures in the same product.
It facilitates the exposure of around 235 services through our platform to feed various government entities across the entire country.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) category, the mindshare of Mule ESB is 20.4%, down from 22.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Service Bus is 11.7%, up from 11.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 10.9%, up from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
 

Featured Reviews

PurbayanSaha - PeerSpot reviewer
Has API-led architecture and provides a unique, user-friendly, and scalable architecture for hosting APIs
There's room for improvement in multi-file transfer functionality. It's not convenient when using MuleSoft, and it should have better capability for handling large amounts of data. For example, applications like GoAnywhere can handle huge chunks of data, so the tool should also have something to facilitate that aspect of integration.
Radhey Rajput - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows seamless integration and connectivity with different types of systems
I would suggest using this solution. Oracle Service Bus is very good. Any organization can use it. So it's very robust and scalable, and its security features are very good. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because there are some loopholes in service and support. Sometimes, when we have issues and go to Oracle support, they will not give us solutions. Instead, they will ask for so many log files and emails. The product is good, but the support is not.
Michele Illiano - PeerSpot reviewer
Can function as an ESB along with the core product, with decent integration of message protocols
I have noticed that webMethods ActiveTransfer has had problems when handling large files. For example, when we receive (and perform operations on) files that are larger than about 16 MB, the software starts losing performance. This is why, for most customers who have to deal with big files, I suggest that they use a product other than ActiveTransfer. I would like to note that this problem mainly concerns large files that undergo extra operations, such assigning, unassigning, or file translation. When these operations take place on large files, ActiveTransfer will use up a lot of resources. Within the product itself, I also believe that there is room for improvement in terms of optimization when it comes to general performance. I suspect that the issues underlying poor optimization are because it is all developed in Java. That is, all the objects and functions that are used need to be better organized, especially when it comes to big files but also overall. webMethods ActiveTransfer was born as an ESB to handle messages, and these messages were typically very short, i.e. small in size. A message is data that you have to send to an application, where it must be received in real-time and possibly processed or acknowledged elsewhere in the system as well. So, because it was initially designed for small messages, it struggles with performance when presented with very large files. All this to say, I suggest that they have an engineer reevaluate the architecture of the product in order to consider cases where large files are sent, and not only small ones. As for new features, compared to other products in the market, I think Software AG should be more up to date when it comes to extra protocol support, especially those protocols that other solutions have included in their products by default. Whenever we need to add an unsupported protocol, we have to go through the effort of custom development in order to work with it. Also, all the banks are obligated to migrate to the new standards, and big companies are all handling translations and operating their libraries with the new protocol formats. But webMethods ActiveTransfer doesn't seem to be keeping up with this evolution. Thus, they should aim to be more compliant in future, along the lines of their competitors such as IBM and Primeur.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solutions are best for your needs.
850,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Retailer
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Migration from IBM Integration Bus to Mulesoft ESB for a large enterprise tech services company
I was previously part of the Oracle SOA/OSB development team. In my current capacity I architected solutions using Mu...
IBM Integration Bus vs Mule ESB - which to choose?
Our team ran a comparison of IBM’s Integration Bus vs. Mule ESB in order to determine what sort of ESB software was t...
What do you like most about Mule ESB?
The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot.
What do you like most about Oracle Service Bus?
The stability is consistently high, with only one notable issue encountered.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle Service Bus?
Oracle Service Bus is expensive but provides value for money. The pricing is comparative to IBM offerings.
What needs improvement with Oracle Service Bus?
The microservices portion of Oracle Service Bus needs some improvement. Compared to MuleSoft, MuleSoft is much easier...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage d...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ube, PacificComp, University of Witwatersrand, Justice Systems, Camelot
MakeMyTrip Ltd., Griffith University, Colab Consulting Pty. Ltd., Pacfico Seguros Generales, IGEPA IT-SERVICE GmbH, Guangzhou Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Pacfico Seguros Generales, Bank Audi S.A.L., Rydges Sydney Airport, Intelligent Pathways, Nacional Monte de Piedad IAP
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Salesforce, Oracle and others in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Updated: April 2025.
850,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.