Mule ESB Reviews

We used Mule ESB for the integration between two or three organizations.

The solution's drag-and-drop interface and data viewer helped us quite a lot.

It would be much more beneficial if the solution included AI and business process management.

We have been implementing the solution for three years now in our company.

Sometimes, we had to restart the servers from time to time because of some environmental issues.

I rate the solution a six out of ten for stability.

Mule ESB is a scalable solution. Our clients for Mule ESB are small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

The solution's initial setup is easy.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup an eight out of ten.

The solution can be deployed in a few minutes.

Mule ESB is an expensive solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.

We were using the solution for the transformation of requests. So, it was good for us to exchange data and establish communication between different legacy and modern systems.

Mainly, we were using the transformers. Other than that, the process flows were very helpful for us to implement them. Earlier, the integration was done into the development and through the languages itself, like custom implementation. With Mule ESB, we could do many transformations and implement the process flows within the services itself.

We were having the same service which we had to distribute among the different clients. The proxy and role assignment was done through Mule ESB. This helped us with the distribution of services among different vendors and then validating them based on their roles.

Although we faced some challenges initially, we got the expertise by learning from Mule ESB itself. Eventually, everything got smooth, and we never had any issues with the deployment. Depending on the requirements and the size of the projects, I would recommend Mule ESB to other users.

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

We use this solution to integrate with other software applications.

Now, we are running almost 50 integration APIs, and will have over 1 million billable transactions.

The solution can be deployed on cloud or on-premises. I'm using version 4.2.

It's open source, and there are a lot of community resources. Mule ESB makes it easy to connect to other software applications.

Mule ESB isn't as secure as IBM. Financial companies go with IBM for that reason.

I have been using this solution for over nine years.

The stability is great compared to IBM.

The scalability is amazing. You can increase the horizontal perspective or the increase the vertical perspective. It depends on your business needs.

We have a dedicated support person from the MuleSoft tech support.

Development is very easy. Initial setup took two days. We needed to open a firewall, download the necessary things, clean the server, file storage, network storage, and we needed to work on the installation of the servers.

For deployment, we had one person for admin and one person for development.

I would rate this solution seven out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution for those who want to use it. It will depend on the customer's needs and what they want to use it for.

We use this solution when we have integrations and need to connect to SAP or to some Q mechanisms like ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ. The applications we develop are for administrators. We are customers of Mule ESB. 

The HTTP, SAP and RabbitMQ connectors that we use are very easy to connect. The language for writing the transformations is also very simple. This is a useful solution. The solution doesn't require much code writing and we can develop APIs very easily. 

The main issue we currently have is that the version we are using will not be supported for much longer and we'll have to migrate to the newer version. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

We use this solution every day and it is stable.

The solution is scalable although we don't need to scale for now. 

The support is pretty good. We raise a ticket when we need something and the response time is good. 

Positive

We had some initial hiccups following deployment, but since then it's been good. We deployed in-house. 

Licensing costs are relatively expensive. 

The main difference I noticed between Mule and Red Hat Fuse was the licensing cost. Mule ESB was a more expensive solution. I haven't worked much on other ESBs but when I compare it with Spring Boot or other similar technologies, Mule is better in that it doesn't require much code writing.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

When I worked for the Sprint telephone company, we used the solution as a bridge between their legacy systems and the front end. We developed a lot of the functionality, for example, logging into users' accounts and activating cell phones.

The solution improved the company by modernizing the way they offer services and improving the user experience.

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.

I've been using Mule ESB since 2016, so about six years.

The stability of the solution is great. In fact, the stability is another improvement that the solution brought to the company.

The solution has great scalability.

I previously used an eCommerce platform called Intershop, but it's not really an ESB. Intershop allows for the development of the whole eCommerce system, from the back end to the front end. I switched to Mule due to the needs of a new project that I was starting because it acts as a bridge between legacy systems and front-end systems.

It was kind of straightforward. We had to study their legacy systems and then make some kind of mapping between those legacy systems and the RESTful APIs handled by Mule.

We used a consultant directly from MuleSoft for deployment. It took about an hour or two to deploy the solution, plus time for testing. 

To those looking into implementing this solution, I would say that you will enjoy the experience of using Mule.

I would rate this solution as a ten 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.

At the moment, we are using MuleSoft 4, for which I am a certified developer. We use version 4.3. 

We can do very fast development of the orchestrations of MuleSoft. The design patents which we use for integration patents are also a nice feature. 

The solution also offers multiple deployment options. I like the endpoint time manager and the access policies. 

In respect of the UI or the interface, a concept such as that offered by Microgateway would be preferable. We basically use ESB for the gateways. Yet, sometimes when we make use of on-premises standard applications, we require a Microgateway or sidecar proxy products or sidecar proxy-type gateways. This should be addressed. 

A Microgateway type of application should be available for lending support to MuleSoft. When it comes to standalone applications, it would be better if a sidecar proxy were available, rather than the security models being implemented inside the application. The sidecar proxies make things very simple in respect of microservices.

It would be great to see implementing security modules as a feature. 

I have been working with MuleSoft for the past seven years. 

Our current requirements are not great. The version we currently use, 4.3, is much more stable at present. It has good stability. 

The scalability is good. It varies with the request I receive or the application size. It can be done with much ease. 

Technical support is more in the purview of developers. 

The installation time depends on the product being deployed and the size of the application. What we are using at the moment would not require installation of more than an hour. We usually would receive a zip file that we would insert into the server, at which point we could start with the deployment. We have a command for the installation of the licenses and even this depends on the type of job involved. That is all. I would put the installation time at no more than 35 to 40 minutes. 

I have done the installation on my own many times. I have this product on my personal laptop, as well and usually install it on my small machines. 

As with our other applications, MuleSoft is on-premises, but we make use of a hybrid strategy involving the use of an endpoint cloud and agent. While our initial deployment was on-premises, our control plane is on endpoint in the cloud. 

I am a MuleSoft developer and am working for a client. The company which I work for is a partner with MuleSoft.

I would recommend MuleSoft to others. 

While what we are using for our current project is more than sufficient, it would be nice to see Microgateway added as a feature. 

I rate the solution as an eight out of ten. 

I use Mule ESB to exchange data between four or five systems at one time. We exchange government organizations' data.

Mule ESB is a very easy-to-use and user-friendly solution.

There are some features on the commercial version of the solution that would be great if they were on the community version. Additionally, if they added more authorization features it would be helpful.

I have been using Mule ESB for approximately two years.

The stability of Mule ESB is very good.

Mule ESB is a highly scalable solution.

I am the only one using Mule ESB in my organization and I use it daily.

The community version of Mule ESB does not have support. I  find information online if I need it.

I was previously using Talend ESB but it's more complex than Mule ESB to use. The commercial versions have more features than Talend ESB.

Mule ESB was very easy to set up. I did three months of testing Mule ESB before I went into production.

I did the implementation of Mule ESB myself. There is no maintenance required for Mule ESB.

The price of the Mule ESB commercial version is expensive. However, they have a free community version.

I recommend this solution to others. If you have any data exchanges with other systems, Mule ESB is very useful and easy to use, even if it's the commercial version.

I rate Mule ESB a nine out of ten.

I use ESB to do integrations for a company called Pelindo. Pelindo is a company that's a terminal operator. They are involved in logistics, have many partners, and require transaction detection and a payment gateway.

I like that Mule ESB provides fast and good technical support.

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.

I have been using Mule ESB since 2013, so nine years. 

Mule ESB is stable, but sometimes the traffic is unstable because the transaction rate increases and the server is obsolete.

Technical support is fast and good.

Positive

I think the initial setup was straightforward.

I have experience installing this solution for my company. I can also maintain  Mule ESB by myself.

I think the price is very high. If you use TIBCO BW, the license is for the CPU usage, then the IPS, and support. I also think the license for the product is a one-time expense. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Mule ESB an eight.