We performed a comparison between Mule ESB and webMethods Integration Server 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."Mule Expression Language"
"Everything runs in Java, which is a useful feature."
"Easy connectivity and easy integration."
"The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily."
"The cloud and integration abilities are most useful allowing us to use applications such as Salesforce and DataWeave."
"It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that it's programmer-friendly, so it's very easy to develop APIs."
"It's obvious that the heart of the product lies here. It's comprised of all aspects of ESB (Enterprise Gateway, Adapter, TN, Java) and BPM (task, rules engine)."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is its reliability. It has a lot of great documentation from the service providers. Additionally, it is easy to use."
"Operationally, I consider the solution to be quite good."
"Segregation of deployment for the environments is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"One [of the most valuable features] is the webMethods Designer. That helps our developers develop on their own. It's very intuitive for design. It helps our developers to speed the development of services for the integrations."
"They are the building blocks of EAI in SAG products, and they offer a very good platform."
"I like the stability of the webMethods Integration Server."
"From the product perspective, it was sometimes hard to manage the dependencies. When we had to add dependencies on a couple of different packages, it was sometimes confusing. It was hard to update them with Anypoint Studio, as well as with MuleSoft. There were challenges with that. So, that's one of the areas that could 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."
"From an improvement perspective, there should be fewer coding challenges for users in Mule ESB."
"MuleSoft is not so strong in method-based integration, so they're not so functional in that regard."
"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."
"There are limitations with the subscription model that comes with the product."
"Documentation is cryptic, product releases are far too frequent, and upgrades become troublesome."
"webMethods Integration Server needs to add more adapters."
"I would like to see the price improve."
"The patching of infrastructure is not very smooth and improved authentication should be added in the next feature."
"The interface needs some work. It is not very user-friendly."
"Rapid application development has to be considered, especially for UI, where user interference is crucial."
"It is quite expensive."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"The stability of the various modules of the product suite have been a bit of a concern lately. Though their support team is always easy to reach out to, I would prefer it not come to that."
More webMethods Integration Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Mule ESB is ranked 2nd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 45 reviews while webMethods Integration Server is ranked 3rd in Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) with 60 reviews. Mule ESB is rated 8.0, while webMethods Integration Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Mule ESB writes "Plenty of documentation, flexible, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of webMethods Integration Server writes "Event-driven with lots of helpful formats, but minimal learning resources available". Mule ESB is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, Oracle Service Bus, Oracle SOA Suite, Red Hat Fuse and IBM DataPower Gateway, whereas webMethods Integration Server is most compared with IBM Integration Bus, webMethods.io Integration, TIBCO BusinessWorks, Boomi AtomSphere Integration and Oracle Service Bus. See our Mule ESB vs. webMethods Integration Server 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.
