Mule ESB Reviews

Our clients are using the solution for app-to-app integrations and B2B integrations.

The connectors help to connect with a variety of applications. We have used connectors for Salesforce and Dynamics CRM. The file processing features are useful.

The initial setup is not easy.

I have been using the solution for ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable if we use the CloudHub and RTF components. Otherwise, ESB isn't scalable. I work with small, medium, and large businesses.

The support is not great. We've had certain issues in the past. We did not get good support.

Negative

I rate the ease of setup a four to five out of ten. We have to do it properly, especially with the hybrid integration.

The product produces a return on investment. Our build effort has reduced a lot.

The pricing must be improved. We are not able to use a lot of the features because of the price. The customers are moving to other cloud solutions.

We have used TIBCO.

We are integrators. We have very minimal implementations of Mule. The product has good functionalities and capabilities. We recommend the product to our customers. However, we are very careful about our recommendations because of the pricing. Overall, I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

We use it for creating APIs and integrating with different messaging systems.

Most of our use cases are for Salesforce. So, the connectors for Salesforce have been really helpful. They've made development two times faster.

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.

One thing that would be helpful is a built-in reconnection strategy for connections to third-party systems. For example, when you have your request connecting to any third-party system, each connection needs a reconnection strategy. This means if a connection fails while an application is running in production and the backend system is down, we usually try to reconnect several times. But in the ESB world, the out-of-the-box component for connection requests, which has the reconnection strategy configuration, only retries during deployment. If there's a failure post-deployment, it doesn't retry. You have to add extra logic for that. If that reconnection capability can be embedded within that configuration, it would avoid the need for external logic. It would reduce extra steps and make the process smoother.

I have been working with Mule ESB for two years. I work with Anypoint Platform ESB and the complete platform, including CSV and gateway.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. The solution is quite stable on the cloud. However, there have been some issues when it's on-premise or located in a specific location.

With the current trend and new tools emerging, like the JNA stuff, MuleSoft has plugins for all IDEs. If these plugins continue to be available and supported in the future, it'll be easier to develop. This would definitely enhance the product's scalability.

In my specific department, around 60 people are using it.

In my experience, I've received fairly standard responses. For my specific use cases, I didn't always find their solutions helpful. They often provided standard information, which we were already aware of. A deeper dive into the issues would have been more beneficial. There's an area of improvement.

Neutral

Since most of us are on the cloud, most clients prefer the cloud, where the entire platform as a service is provided. So, the setup process is very smooth, and there's really no setup needed. It's all cloud-based. For local development work, the setup for the IDE is taken care of by the cloud, making everything easy to set up.

Initially, we did get some minimal support, but it wasn't extensive. We collaborated to resolve issues or gain clarity on certain points.

I would rate the pricing a five out of ten, where one is high price, and ten is low price. I would place it in the middle. It's neither too expensive nor too cheap. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I manage a team to handle various integrations using Mule ESB and lead the integration practice. We are a platinum partner of Mule, implementing Mule solutions for our clients.

Mule ESB has provided a centralized control plane for distributed deployment, making it a useful solution.

The most beneficial features of Mule ESB are the control plane and runtime plane. Its centralized control plane has been the most useful for distributed deployments. Mule ESB is also faster and easier to configure than other solutions.

In India, particularly in the banking sector, clients do not prefer cloud solutions due to regulatory and compliance requirements. This creates a challenge for Mule's adaptability as the control systems are on the cloud. 

Having the control plane on-premises would increase adaptability in the financial sector. There are challenges with getting consistent technical support and the cost of licensing is high compared to other solutions.

I have been using Mule ESB for two to three years.

Mule ESB is a stable solution with no significant challenges.

Mule ESB is highly scalable, both horizontally and vertically. It is easily scalable if the platform solution architecture is designed properly.

There are challenges in getting consistent and adequate technical support from Mule. Other partners are more flexible and supportive during development times. The education level of the support team sometimes becomes a challenge.

Neutral

We work with various solutions for different clients, including both API and ESB solutions. We have not implemented Mule extensively in the banking sector due to preference for on-premises solutions.

The initial setup is not very difficult, but it requires a strong hold and good design to adapt and implement the new system effectively.

We are a platinum partner of Mule, implementing their solutions in various organizations. We have a large implementation team.

The ROI is lower compared to other solutions due to high licensing costs.

Pricing is higher compared to other solutions, and the licensing costs are high.

We work with multiple solutions, including webMethods.

I would recommend Mule ESB to others. It's important to be aware of the costs and technical support challenges.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use this solution to get data.

The stability could be improved.

We have been using this solution for about two years.

The scalability is good, and I rate it a nine out of ten. We have about 20 users using this solution. We do not have plans to increase the number of users, as it depends on the number of use cases we deploy. We have developers, managers and business users using this solution.

Technical support comes with the subscription plan.

We used Oracle ten years ago.

The setup is straightforward. It was a fast deployment and took one week.

The subscription is annual.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My current client is using Oracle Fusion Middleware as their integration platform, and they want us to build a new platform enabling the same functionality using MuleSoft. 

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. 

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. They're already implementing a graph system, which should help organize the APIs in a branched way. It looks more like a relational database now. They're also working on MuleSoft Composer. These are the features that they're working on. 

We've used Mule ESB for four years now.

Mule ESB is stable. 

Mule ESB is scalable.

I haven't personally contacted MuleSoft support. Our team has contacted them during some test scenarios, and they were responsive. I would rate MuleSoft support a solid nine out of 10 based on my limited experience with them. 

I have little experience with Oracle Fusion. It's quite good, but the interface is pretty old-fashioned. I worked with IBM WebSphere as well. That was a big part of another project I worked on, but these are the two technologies I've used.

Currently, I'm working with Oracle Fusion. These solutions require elaborate coding, so you need to be extremely experienced in programming, with the ability to write tons of complex code. It's good to have a solid background in coding, but you shouldn't need to be an expert to work. 

Mule ESB isn't difficult to set up, but there are specific procedures you need to follow. Prerequisites need to be in place to set up the whole environment. It's straightforward once you set up the platform.

After deployment, it doesn't require much maintenance. Most things can be automated, so you don't need someone to always monitor the solution.  Ultimately, it depends on your use case. 

I rate Mule ESB nine out of 10. It works well for me. If you're using Mule ESB for the first time, I recommend taking advantage of the free training. If you go through that training, you'll have a basic understanding of the technology. That's a good starting point.

Mule ESB excels in orchestrating workflows and seamlessly integrating with business implementations while keeping technical details hidden. It also offers protocol transformation, converting between different protocols, and supports service exposure to customers while maintaining technical invisibility.

We utilize data transformation capabilities extensively. For complex cases, we employ the SSLi engine, whereas for simpler ones like healthcare or response data, such as EDI 270 or 271. We prefer to use an external XRT engine instead of handling it within the ESB for ease of management. For smaller data transformations, we rely on DSPS.  

One notable drawback is the user experience aspect, particularly in terms of self-service functionality within Mule ESB. It would be beneficial if users could navigate the UI easily without extensive training or learning curves.

I have been using Mule ESB for the last five years.

The solution is generally stable. We ensure proper sizing and memory management, which helps avoid glitches and slowdowns.

Mule ESB is scalable because it can be easily scaled in a cloud deployment and is containerized, making scaling up or down straightforward. This shouldn't be a major concern nowadays.

MuleSoft's customer support is excellent.

Positive

Setting up Mule ESB is relatively easy, although it depends on factors like account categorization and whether you're using Docker or Kubernetes. 

Typically, installation and configuration take around three to four days initially, but subsequent deployments or updates are quicker. One engineer or developer is usually sufficient for deployment, but implementation complexity may vary based on the use case.

The ROI of Mule ESB is greatly influenced by the design and governance of the solution, particularly focusing on reusability and adherence to microservices architecture. Properly designing and implementing these aspects can significantly enhance ROI.

Regarding licensing and pricing, I find it somewhat flexible. They are more flexible with larger customers compared to small and medium ones, as their licensing model depends on ports and other factors. Large customers benefit from more flexibility in implementation and renewal compared to smaller ones.

Working with Mule ESB has taught us the value of experience with different ESBs, making it easier to adapt to new solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We use Mule ESB for integrating with third-party vendors. Mule ESB bridge between internal systems and third-party systems. Additionally, we use it for enterprise, web, and APIs services.

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.

The price of Mule ESB could improve.

I have been using Mule ESB for approximately four years.

Mule ESB is a stable solution.

The scalability of Mule ESB is very good. 

Mule ESB has been in use since 2008. It has been a long-running tool and application and has supported multiple phases.

Mule ESB is easy to set up, configure, and change the configuration. It only takes a couple of days to make any changes the client asks for. The longest project we had using Mule ESB was one week.

We do the implementation and support of Mule ESB. The solution is easily maintained and manageable.

Mule ESB is a costly solution. We pay approximately $80,000 annually for the system. The cost of the number of instances, annual subscription, and cloud hosting services are expensive.

We are thinking about moving away from Mule ESB and using Red Hat because of the high costs of Mule ESB. However, Mule ESB is a good solution.

We propose Mule ESB in terms of solutions for any kind of enterprise service bus application.

I rate Mule ESB a nine out of ten.

This is an enterprise service bus, and it is mainly used for transferring data. For example, it is used when System A has the data that needs to be sent to System B. 

Our use case is transferring the enterprise data from one enterprise to a different enterprise. We use different types of connectors or connections to get the data, transform the data, and send it to a system. Almost all the integrations work in the same manner.

It can be deployed on-premise, but nowadays, most of us prefer cloud-based solutions.

It is easy to use and easy to understand. 

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.

It should have some amount of logging.

I've been using this solution for almost two years.

It is stable.

It can scale based on your needs. It is scalable vertically and horizontally.

We have used it in many projects. Its usage might increase. It depends on the high-level management. If new products are coming, they're going to use it for sure.

Their response is based on the subscription. If you are experiencing any production-related issues, they're immediately available. 

There are various levels of tech support, and the service depends upon the level of support to which you have subscribed. Titanium support is at the highest level.

We have used webMethods, which is an on-prem solution. 

For a cloud-based deployment, there is no need for us to manage anything. It is directly deployable. We build and deploy it. That's all. 

For an on-prem deployment, a lot more installation is required, but it is a very easy process.

We can do an on-prem deployment ourselves. Developers mainly focus on the development aspect of the solutions, and admins manage all deployments.

We didn't evaluate other options.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is the best integration platform for those who are looking to implement or are going for API-based architecture and microservices-based architecture.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.