MuleSoft Anypoint Platform Reviews

We transfer data between systems. We are to save the data to make the communication between systems synchronous. We use Anypoint MQ for making the communication synchronous. The source integration component will place the data into Anypoint MQ, and the target company will take it from there.

Because our customers are moving from on-premise to cloud, it's mostly costs that have been saved and nothing else.

The most valuable feature is the messaging system.

Anypoint MQ is not a pure messaging product. There are so many solutions like this, but this is not as mature as those products. The other MQ products have the capability of reprocessing and maintaining the persistence of the data. They can handle large volumes and large messages, but Anypoint MQ doesn't have those capabilities.

It can only handle a maximum size of 10 megabytes. The other MQ products have a larger capacity. IBM MQ can handle 100 megabytes of data or even solid gigabytes. This doesn't have that capability.

This solution has a lot of gaps. It's not a pure MQ product. We have sort of exposed this product with different protocols like TCP. Also, it has to evaluate these capabilities compared to the other market products.

I have been using this solution for four years. The solution is used on an iPaaS cloud provided by MuleSoft.

The stability of Anypoint is not as mature as other MQ products.

The scalability is under the hood. It is AWS, and it is reliable. It's not user-based. It is automation-based and IT products-based. We have deployed five or six individuals using Anypoint MQ.

This is not a pure provider. It is just a tactical solution cloud. In the long run, we want to go back to square one and use other MQ products like ActiveMQ or IBM MQ because of Anypoint's limitations. For instance, it can't handle more than 10 megabytes of data, and it can't hold more than 50 persistent messages.

Deployment and maintenance are automated. There is an initial automation that is required.

Technical support is good.

We previously used a stable solution. We moved to this product thinking that the cost would be reduced, but things are not working as expected. We plan to go back to using the old solution.

Initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment is a cakewalk.

You don't need an explicit skill set for deployment. Anyone can do it.

I can't give you a straightforward answer because sometimes it depends on the usage. If you're going to have fewer than 5 million messages, it is free of cost. If you're going to have more than 5 million messages, you will be charged $100 per month.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10. 

We thought that this was a pure demo product. We moved from IBM to MuleSoft thinking that it would work like IBM, but that's not what happened.

My advice is to try to evaluate the product beforehand and see whether it fits your needs and requirements. Check if it covers all of your use cases. Otherwise, it won't work.

There are a lot of MQ products on the market, but this is suitable for small scale customers and not for large scale.

We haven't switched solutions yet, but the plan is to switch because of this product's limitations. It doesn't cover all the use cases.

The solution enables searching, publishing, consumption, and subscription of APIs via a portal.

The product is robust. It is Java-based. We use the little resources we have to get things done. The tool’s API management capabilities are excellent. It is a rock-solid product. The tool has a lot of dashboards. We can monitor performance and scalability.

The product is expensive.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

We can have multiple instances and scale them dynamically. The solution also has load-balancing capabilities. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. We can just define our APIs and start building them. The tool is mostly deployed on the cloud. It can be deployed on public, private, and hybrid clouds. The deployment does not take much time. After the testing, if everything is fine, the tool can be deployed.

Boomi is suitable for small and medium-sized companies. Mule Anypoint Platform is suitable for small and medium businesses, but it is expensive.

I am a partner of Salesforce. I tried to understand why Boomi is stronger in the market than Mule Anypoint Platform. However, I could not find any disadvantages of Mule Anypoint Platform. The product has been in the market for a long time.

It has also introduced AI features. It can take issues and divert them based on dynamic data. ROI is not the only factor we consider. We must also consider scalability, smooth and hassle-free use, time to production, and time taken for testing. We can monitor things in real-time. I recommend the solution to enterprises. It is a good solution to migrate from TIBCO.

The tool has an API manager with a dedicated console to control the policies and everything else. Everything is integrated. We can call relevant data on the go. Nothing is hard-coded. If we want to get data from a particular source, we can automatically get it based on the AI input.

Overall, I rate the tool an eight to nine out of ten.

We use the solution for migration and integration.

There are issues with dead-letter queues.

I have been using Anypoint MQ for one year.

The product is stable so far.

The customer service is not good enough in Hong Kong.

We chose Anypoint MQ because it is a top-rated product in the market.

For the basic setup, we use some local message queues and integrate them with the message queue. It took one year to complete the setup.

We used another tool because it was complicated, and we had to hire a third party to build the architecture. The setup is quite complicated.

Anypoint MQ has stability issues. I have experienced data loss and inconsistent behaviour. The data isn't always pushed to the SQL database. When I put a message in the SQL queue, the data should be static, but it's not. Additionally, clicking a message in Anypoint MQ can sometimes trigger database loss. This instability becomes particularly noticeable when starting or restarting the server.

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

We use the infrastructure of the Mule Anypoint Platform to host our application and services on Amazon. We are end-users and I'm a technical delivery manager.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of developing APIs. It's very, very easy and very fast. Anypoint offers good performance and security. 

The pricing should be improved, it's an expensive product. 

I've been using this solution for six years. 

The solution is stable. 

The scalability is good but again, you need to be aware that if you want to scale up your APIs, it requires spending more. 

We're not so happy with the technical support, it could definitely be improved. 

Generally, deployment of one API wouldn't take more than 10-15 minutes. We use CICD DevOps for our deployment strategy and it's carried out in-house. We use this product continuously and extensively.

It's important to be aware of the cost implications of using this solution. Unless you know the extent to which you are going to use MuleSoft, you'll begin with a handful of APIs that need to be developed and then you'll start implementing more and more until you realize it's become quite expensive. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We are customers of Mule.

This is a good platform for designing, flowing out APIs, and then doing API-based integrations. It also offers a lot of adapters for commercial products like Salesforce, SAP and the like. It has good monitoring abilities. If you use it for API management, security monitoring and things like that, it works well at the experience API layer.

One of the issues I have is that Jira tries to be more than an API-based integration platform and it encourages writing of Java-based applications underneath the cover, even though it's not meant to be an app service, so it's slow. That's how they try to sell it. The solution has three layers; the experience layer, the process layer and the system layer. The system layer is used to connect the systems; the process layer can be used to create processes like transformations, logic, etc.; and the experience layer is used to interface with whoever's going to consume it. The problem is that the process layer is not efficient. It acts like an interpreter and interpreters are slow, and if you give it some path like converting to a 100 kilobyte file, it takes 15 times more memory than if I just wrote a program 

When you try using it for the processing layer, it doesn't work well. We ended up pulling back to .NET for our own internal microservices that do a lot of processing. We use the .NET microservices as the process layer, because we know it's faster. Then we plug it into Mule to experience the API interface and that's when we need to make a choice, do we put our system APIs right through our microservice, or do we use Mule as a system API layer, but then let it interface with our process API. We just had to make choices.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution has threading, but it has the interpreter feature which I think slows it down.

The technical support is not great and documentation is sparse. You really have to rely on the community, more experienced MuleSoft users, who know the strengths and weaknesses, rather than relying on the company. You can get an architect to assist with implementation.

It's an expensive solution and then you have to try and find a MuleSoft engineer, which is even harder.

The issue seems to be the way they've positioned the product, advocating the experience layer, process layer and system layer through Mule. As it competes with the likes of webMethods, it rates as an eight out of 10. As an end-to-end solution, however, I would rate it a five at best. 

The tool's use cases are mainly for enterprise-level integrations that require transformations and major publish-subscribe scenarios in which data needs to be published to multiple systems in different formats.

I rate the solution's ease of learning a nine out of ten. It has good documentation and self-learning videos. It promotes usability and provides an end-to-end integration solution with the Salesforce ecosystem

The tool helps with order management and automates the enterprise's orchestration, invoice creation, product maintenance, and product life cycle. The API manager feature helps us configure, secure, and call APIs. 

The tool requires programming language. 

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform's stability as nine out of ten.

I rate Mule Anypoint Platform's scalability as nine out of ten. 

The solution's deployment is 10-20 percent longer.

We have a team to deploy the tool. 

The tool's pricing is cheaper than other RPAs' since it is execution-based. Other RPAs charge based on subscriptions.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

I would recommend Anypoint MQ to customers using MuleSoft as an integration platform. Anypoint MQ is a pure messaging product. The solution is scalable, and its performance is quite good.

The solution's licensing model is expensive and could be improved.

I've recently started using Anypoint MQ.

The solution’s technical support is good, but they should work on their response time.

Neutral

Anypoint MQ is easy to configure. However, it is not that easy when compared to Apache Kafka.

If customers using open-source integration or any springboard integrations need JMS, they must carefully evaluate the product. I would recommend Anypoint MQ only for MuleSoft customers. I won't recommend the solution to customers using a different integration platform because there's a cost associated with the product.

Overall, I rate Anypoint MQ an eight out of ten.

The solution is used as a middle environment as we have our own database settings and PostgreSQL database. If an API requires some information then they need to go through Mule Anypoint. We are also trying to implement our own DataGraph. 

In our company, we have some other ETL tools but comparatively, MuleSoft is much more compatible in many other ways for data transformation. MuleSoft can handle a lot of different types of data. So even if something is not available, there are some workarounds, and this is professionally advantageous. 

I have a lot of resources as a developer and I don't want to always ask Mule for help. There are a lot of online resources which can be referred to easily even as a beginner, which is a positive.

Most of the people who work here are long-term employees who are much more versatile in German, than English, and MuleSoft supports the local languages. That was one of the positives and was why Mulesoft was considered beyond its scalability and other functions. Whenever we need some support in our local language, we get it easily. They also have an office in Germany and if a person is unable to contact them by phone, they can go to the office in person.

The initial setup should be made easy and the documentation should have some guidance. 

I have been using Mule Anypoint Platform for two years. 

The solution's stability has increased over time. 

It is a scalable solution. Presently, five to ten people use the solution. 

The technical support team is quick with their responses and are prompt in providing a solution. 

The initial setup is complex as there is no documentation that can guide you. There are professionals to help but they charge a lot.

I would recommend others to use the solution because it is easy to use. If they want to learn, there is a free course available on the website for developers. At the same time, even if you are not able to get some information readily available, there are a lot of other resources that are available online. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten as they are still improving.