MuleSoft API Manager Reviews

My main use cases for MuleSoft API Manager include integrating various systems.

MuleSoft API Manager provides excellent integration with any solution, and integration with third-party vendors is not an issue.

I am satisfied with combining all APIs in one place, and the monitoring capabilities in MuleSoft API Manager for all my APIs are useful for operational efficiency.

I am satisfied with the security features of MuleSoft API Manager. The initial setup of MuleSoft API Manager is great.

I see some gaps for improvement in MuleSoft API Manager. I rate the technical support from Salesforce a 6 out of 10.

I have been working with MuleSoft API Manager for one year.

I would rate the stability of MuleSoft API Manager a solid 8 out of 10.

I would rate the scalability of MuleSoft API Manager an 8 out of 10.

I see some gaps for improvement when I rate the technical support from Salesforce a 6 out of 10.

Positive

I am currently with my Salesforce product that I use to replace Oracle.

I find the initial setup of MuleSoft API Manager to be great.

I understand the point about comparing MuleSoft API Manager with solutions from other vendors.

Regarding the analytics part of MuleSoft API Manager, I am satisfied with it and provide positive feedback about the analytics capabilities.

MuleSoft API Manager provides significant key benefits for end users. I rate this review a 9 out of 10.

MuleSoft API Manager is used in our consulting firm, and we recommend it to our customers. We usually work with retail customers, banking customers, and manufacturing customers, among others, providing consulting services across various industries.

In MuleSoft API Manager, I find features like throttling and security to be the most valuable, as these are the things we use and configure as part of our deployments.

We focus more on security features in MuleSoft, implementing masking features as part of our data management and controlling how many messages consumers can send based on grouping.

Regarding how MuleSoft API Manager can be improved, I find that we have all the features we need for our customers, so there is nothing much at this point.

For the current project, we have been working on MuleSoft API Manager for the last 10 years.

For technical support of MuleSoft, I would rate them as good; they perform well.

Neutral

In terms of initial setup, I find it easy to deploy, with everything coming from the cloud, and we are not going to use on-premises.

We are not resellers; we are only implementation partners providing consulting services based on our customers' needs.

When it comes to pricing, I find it always expensive. The pricing is high, which is the biggest point where some customers are hesitant about adopting it, and their deployment strategy is also more costly due to containerization.

In comparison to other competitors, I believe MuleSoft API Manager is definitely the best option on the market, though it is very costly compared to all others, and APG also comes at a high cost.

Even in Informatica, there are very lightweight API management capabilities; depending on their nature of business, some people are using it just for namesake.

Regarding the analytics feature of MuleSoft API Manager, I rarely use those things, so I may not be in a position to comment on it; I cannot say whether it is good or bad. I would rate this review an 8 out of 10.

I have executed multiple enterprise-grade API implementations using MuleSoft API Manager, primarily to connect SAP, Salesforce, and B2B platforms. These integrations support data synchronization, secure API exposure to web channels, and governance across global operations.

One of the primary use cases was connecting to SAP, Salesforce, and B2B platforms.What is your primary use case of this solution? (Include details about your environment.)

One notable use case was for a global optics manufacturing client, where we built a solution around Salesforce CPQ. With multiple consumer systems onboarding, we developed new integrations, performed complex data transformations, and synchronized backend systems. Initially, the first two integrations took longer due to setup and alignment, but once the framework was established, development velocity improved significantly.

MuleSoft API Manager played a critical role in managing exposed APIs, enforcing policies, and streamlining onboarding. Governance and monitoring capabilities—especially with Splunk and ELK—helped reduce onboarding time and operational overhead. Overall, the platform enabled scalable, secure, and efficient integration across regions.

MuleSoft API Manager has greatly improved our organization by centralizing API governance, enhancing security, and accelerating integration delivery. It enabled faster onboarding of consumers, reduced operational overhead, and provided real-time visibility through tools like ELK and Splunk. This has been especially impactful in managing complex integrations with SAP, Salesforce, and B2B platforms across global manufacturing projects.

The policies in MuleSoft API Manager are significant features. We get the policies by default, with more than 25 out-of-the-box policies. If any additional requirement exists specific to the customer, there is a custom policy framework. We can build the policy according to our requirement, and deploy and enable it at the API Manager level to consume across different business groups, environments, or organizations altogether within the platform. Developing the custom policy is not challenging; you just need to follow the custom policy framework to implement. The custom policy and the different levels of SLAs of the API Manager are notable.

Regarding the monitoring side of the API Manager, MuleSoft provides substantial monitoring with logs, offering search capability, raw data accessibility, and different subscriptions. With the top tier, integration with third-party platforms such as ELK or Splunk becomes unnecessary because all search capabilities, dashboards, and functional monitoring can be built within the platform itself. This is excellent from the monitoring perspective, and there have been recent improvements focusing on observability.

For DevOps, if you want to make your continuous integration and continuous deployment effective, irrespective of the tool, there are options to integrate. For example, you can use the Maven plugin, platform APIs, or CLI to build your end-to-end DevOps cycle.

While MuleSoft API Manager is robust, there are areas that need refinement. Security support, especially around OAuth token validation, has shown inconsistencies that feel more like product-level bugs. The shift to a subscription-based pricing model has also introduced cost challenges, making it relatively expensive for some use cases.

From a user experience standpoint, Anypoint Exchange is limited—currently allowing only one developer portal with minimal customization. Expanding this to support multiple, customizable portals would greatly enhance usability and partner engagement.

I have been using MuleSoft API Manager for more than eight years.

MuleSoft API Manager is stable.

The scalability of MuleSoft API Manager is good and typically depends on the deployment topology type. The runtime can be on-premise, in the cloud, hybrid, or iPaaS solution, where the runtime and control plane are managed by the vendor. Regarding availability, especially with iPaaS solutions, they guarantee 99.99%. In the last 10 years, there has hardly been any downtime except once or twice, while with on-premise solutions, you share the responsibility to ensure availability.

From the customer support perspective, the service is neither excellent nor bad—it is satisfactory. Most times, if bug fixing is required for downtimes or issues, we receive prompt support with alternative solutions or workarounds, and bug fixes are typically provided soon. However, requests for enhancements usually take a longer time to implement, which could be improved.

Positive

I have used other solutions before, specifically WebMethods around seven years ago. While we did not switch over, I understand the comparison between WebMethods and MuleSoft API Manager, noting that MuleSoft API Manager is much more mature from a user's perspective.

Medium, its simple if your certified MuleSoft platform architect

The return on investment is definite. The onboarding process significantly contributes to faster market access. The effort reduced by 30 to 40% directly leads to savings in IT time and costs. Additionally, this iPaaS platform with CloudHub eliminates variable infrastructure-related costs and saves enterprises on connectivity and operations costs, as everything comes bundled from the MuleSoft side.

Regarding pricing, MuleSoft API Manager leads in features and functionality. However, the drawback is definitely the cost. Many customers express concerns about costs after one or two years. The major challenge they face is the high pricing, which has become notable especially since they transitioned from a VCore to a usage-based subscription.

We evaluated multiple options before choosing MuleSoft API Manager. It is a common strategy to assess what is required for the customers, including around 15 to 16 categories. We conduct small POCs to evaluate different tools and give scoring based on that. We chose MuleSoft API Manager through comparisons, especially against WebMethods, Apigee, and IBM.

Don’t choose MuleSoft API Manager blindly—start by identifying your customer’s core priorities, such as cost, security, integration depth, and API connectivity metrics. I recommend listing 12–13 evaluation parameters with weighted scoring and conducting proof-of-concepts (POCs) before finalizing the platform.

Each deployment topology—Classic Runtime, Runtime Fabric (RTF), Hybrid, or iPaaS—comes with its own strengths and limitations. Choose based on your regulatory and operational needs. For environments without strict data residency constraints (e.g., outside banking or insurance), I prefer the iPaaS model for its simplicity and scalability. If data control is critical, RTF offers more flexibility.

Overall, I rate MuleSoft API Manager 8 out of 10.

We are using MuleSoft API Manager in our organization. Currently, we also have Azure API management gateways in use. However, due to cost considerations, we are more inclined towards Azure API M but continue to use MuleSoft API Manager as well.

The MuleSoft Exchange and the Experience Hub stand out as the most valuable features. They provide a smooth and straightforward process for creating and building integrations, especially when compared to other API gateways. 

Additionally, MuleSoft's ability to connect to third-party monitoring platforms like AWS, Datadog, and Elastic makes operational analysis more efficient.

There is room for improvement in the automated access management area and in AI capabilities within the API Manager. Enhanced automated access management features and AI capabilities would be highly beneficial. 

Additionally, introducing features related to auto governance without manual effort would make the API Manager smarter and more efficient for enterprises with complex landscapes.

I have been working with MuleSoft API Manager for approximately eight years now.

The technical support is satisfactory, yet they charge extra for premium support. Our enterprise pays for a special success program, which provides priority support. 

However, there are times when the support teams get confused about our priority status, which indicates room for improvement.

Neutral

I was previously working with IBM API Connect about three to four years back. Currently, I am utilizing the MuleSoft product.

The cost for using MuleSoft is approximately $500,000 USD per year. It includes various subscriptions like the signature success plan and platinum subscriptions, making it a costly infrastructure.

Currently, we are considering Azure API M as an alternative solution.

It depends on the enterprise. For big enterprises with substantial budgets and complex Salesforce landscapes, MuleSoft API Manager is good. However, if an enterprise has AWS or Azure cloud infrastructure, using their services is recommended. 

Overall, I would rate MuleSoft API Manager six out of 10 due to the need for improvements in automation and AI capabilities.

Negative

Our company used MuleSoft API Manager when upgrading to a new SAP S/4 system. We created many APIs following the API-led architecture, building system APIs, processing APIs with our logic, and exposing these to other systems.

I found the authentication features very valuable, like how the tool provides client IDs and secrets and lets you apply authentication policies. We bought the Titanium package with analytics, which allowed us to do rate limiting and throttling. The API monitoring and alerting were also useful.

The API analytics feature helped with our three-layer architecture. When debugging, we could track payloads across the three API levels using correlation IDs, which was very useful.

MuleSoft API Manager helped us overcome several challenges. Before, we didn't have good authentication policies and had to depend heavily on our DevOps team. With the tool, developers can manage everything end-to-end after setting up CICD with DevOps. This was a big advantage as we no longer needed to involve the DevOps or security team to look into security or policies for every application deployment. Having the most control within the team saved many people's time and effort.

I'd like to see improvements in API Exchange. Currently, we can only expose APIs publicly. I want to categorize some APIs and expose them just to internal stakeholders. It would be great if they could log in to a developer portal, see our current APIs, view Swagger or RAML docs, and try request-response payloads.

I have been using the product for six years. 

The tool is great for large-scale industries. It's Java-based, making it easy to write complex logic, and any Java developer can learn it easily. Something like Boomi might be better for small-scale industries as it's mostly based on connections.

The solution's support is available throughout Europe and North America, which is pretty good.

Positive

Boomi doesn't have an IDE, so all development is done on a cloud platform. They don't follow repository systems or have branching strategies. Implementing CICD with Boomi was complicated, and we're still unsatisfied with it. Unlike other technologies we've worked with, Boomi's code doesn't reside on platforms like Bitbucket or GitHub, which I'm not a fan of.

Setting up MuleSoft API Manager was pretty straightforward. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the easiest, I'd rate it an eight or nine. For deployment, we usually take two weeks end-to-end, starting with RAML, then creating the API, and finally exposing it to customers. Only one developer with admin privileges is needed for the whole process.

We do yearly upgrades. Next year, we plan to upgrade to Java 17 and MuleSoft API Manager 4.5 or 4.6. It offers both end-of-support and an additional year of extended support, which is good.

Regarding return on investment, MuleSoft has significantly reduced the number of integrations we have. We used to do many point-to-point integrations, but with MuleSoft API Manager's system API layer, maintenance has become much easier. When a new stakeholder requests an API, it's easy for us to create a new process API over our existing system APIs. This reduces effort and makes our system more robust, leading to faster development and response times.

The product's main drawback is its cost. It's expensive for our company, and their recent change in pricing strategy last year complicated things further. That's the only thing we're not happy with.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

Our primary use case for MuleSoft API Manager is to manage APIs and publish APIs so that whoever is the consumer can understand and access the API specifications on the exchange. 

They can build their codes based on those specifications when calling or consuming our APIs or pushing data to our APIs. It is also used for testing purposes, as API Manager provides stubs for initial testing, which helps consumers.

The MuleSoft API Manager has facilitated the management and publication of APIs, enhancing efficiency by providing clear API specifications for consumers. Its testing stubs also aid in initial testing, improving the overall development and integration process.

The most valuable feature of MuleSoft API Manager is Exchange, where we store all the API specifications and build the documentation for each API. This helps consumers, testers, and support teams to understand what the API does, including its features, expected field values, and methodologies used. Policy enforcement capabilities such as rate limiting, throttling, and authentication/authorization policies are also quite useful.

From an API management perspective, MuleSoft's API Manager is not as powerful as some other tools available. Features like monetization and advanced security, which are present in Apigee, are missing. 

I also want the API Manager to be used as a separate product apart from MuleSoft's other integration solutions. 

Additionally, the licensing cost is high, and many clients are looking to switch due to this.

I have been working with MuleSoft API Manager for almost five to six years.

Stability-wise, MuleSoft API Manager is quite good. However, other products in the market are more stable.

MuleSoft API Manager offers a lot of scalability options. It provides auto-scaling features, which are great; however, the VCOs required for this scaling are costly. If you understand the methodology, the scaling process is excellent.

From a technical support perspective, MuleSoft provides pretty good support. They offer a good level of partner and client support.

Positive

The initial setup for MuleSoft API Manager is simple. The documentation provided by MuleSoft is straightforward, making the platform setup easy if followed properly.

The licensing cost of MuleSoft is high compared to other solutions like Apigee and Azure API Management, leading some clients to prefer those instead.

I considered Apigee, Azure API, and Kong as potential alternatives to MuleSoft API Manager. Apigee and Azure API provide more advanced features and lower costs.

Depending on the client's requirement, MuleSoft is recommended if a comprehensive integration solution is needed, including API management, transformation, interface building, and proxy creation. However, if only an API management platform is needed, other solutions like Apigee or Azure API may be more cost-effective.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We are a user and a consultant for MuleSoft. We provide integration services, including legacy modernization and application modernizations. Integration is one of the core aspects of web services. 

We provide modernization services to customers by moving their legacy apps to a modern digital-first, API-first architecture. Our aim is to provide business agility for the introduction of new products and services and to reduce costs associated with legacy application integration.

Leveraging MuleSoft's Anypoint Platform allows us to seamlessly integrate across different systems within enterprises, enabling customers to extend their products and services to the market with seamless channel integration.

Key features of MuleSoft API Manager include connectors capabilities for seamless integration with Salesforce and ERP systems, ease of API management and security, configuration-driven management, a dashboard for API traffic monitoring, insights for API usage, and ease of development.

The roadmap could include more GenAI use cases integrated into the platform, focusing on various industry verticals. Additionally, there should be capabilities for running GenAI models at the edge, bringing data to edge devices without compromising security.

We started with AditcourSes Evolve and Tuxedos Evolve for strong ESB-based integrations and moved to the current solution due to the flexibility and connector availability provided by MuleSoft.

We provide professional services as part of our offerings which include consulting and advisory services.

MuleSoft API Manager offers a competitive SaaS-based pricing model, usually depending on the deployment option chosen by the customer.

In addition to MuleSoft, we have used solutions like Kong Gateway, Boomi iPaaS, and Check Point integration products.

We have an evaluation framework for various platforms. The decision between MuleSoft and Kong often comes down to customer preferences and their existing ecosystem investments.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We worked predominantly for the BFSI financial sectors and for one of the automobile industries. They're taught in Europe. 

The applications where the customers wanted to download a report, a customer is associated with multiple customers, where they wanted to download the reports for analytics or just wanted to see what is the annual income or something like that. We expose an API for each customer. We will apply a policy where the APIs are being secured. So, each customer will have their own client ID and client secrets.

It has improved a lot in terms of monetizing your API. You get a benefit out of it, and then you secure your API. You restrict the external threats, managing the API end-to-end and governing it. All the features are pretty cool.

Overall, the platform is pretty good, I cannot say which one specific feature is good. The idea of an API Manager is really interesting.

One improvement is to add a plugin in the API Manager. If an organization is using SOAP services or legacy APIs. Maybe I don't want to migrate it to rest API, but my plugin should be able to convert Jason to XML. Basically, protocol transformation features in API Manager.

I have used it for over eight years as a service provider.

As for the stability, no issues up until now.

For scalability, our current licensing is for only ten APIs. Regarding the scalability part, haven't tested it yet.

We had some production issues, and we did escalate them. We got a good response from the customer support team.

It's cloud, so that's the pro. It has all the features that other API manager does, and there are some features that vary from product to product. Everything cannot be brought upon MuleSoft or Anypoint API Manager.  

Right now, the universal API Manager is applicable for any API hosted in any server, it is not only MuleSoft. If we can bring the feature, I am a customer who has a MuleSoft API, as well as an on-prem API, which is developed on Java or some other integration tool. Still, I wanted to leverage the API Manager capability to my non-mule APIs. If these kinds of features are provided to the customer, I think they should be very happy with that approach.

It is complex because it requires a lot of development effort and to understand the business. Additionally, it also requires an understanding of the requirement of how the API behaves. It should be very generic. So first, we can start off with SOAP services because the SOAP services accept only the XML. There should be some kind of configurations that you are plugging in the API Manager where you just define a scheme. This is just an idea where you have to define your scheme as in your platform API Manager and then define your SOAP services. API Manager will do a protocol transformation so we don't touch the existing applications. 

Many clients will also be attracted to this approach. The solution is deployed on the cloud. Deployment time depends on the deployment topology. In the cloud, it is pretty fast. We leverage the CICD framework for any deployment. It takes a maximum of a minute. One person can handle the deployment. There is no maintenance required for the product.

Our customers have a lot of concerns about the increased pricing. The customer feels MuleSoft is very costly, and they are also exploring other integration tools for a lower price. Maybe we should retain the existing customers by offering some discounts. At least the existing customers can be retained this way. This is regarding the licensing part only because customers based out of North America and Europe have shown many concerns recently. They are a bit concerned about pricing.

We help customers to build and manage an API. We help them to integrate their platforms and applications. I think a complete cloud setup gives a lot of flexibility. Customer need not worry about their environment or servers. The complete cloud setup has a 99.99% uptime. So, there is no downtime. I would recommend a complete cloud setup. Overall, I would rate MuleSoft Anypoint API Manager an eight and a half out of ten. That one and a half points will be dedicated because of some of the missing features, which I have seen from other API managers.

We use the solution to do buy-in alignment. There's a banking industry framework that tries to create the bank of the future. There are hundreds of different functions and business domains within a big bank or a small credit union.

The goal is to align reusable process APIs to that framework and then tie them back to system APIs that decouple your systems of record. It's a huge program to resurface credit unions and banks completely using APIs.

I was pleasantly surprised in a couple of places. The solution has a feature called Flex, which is a low-latency API layer for passthrough APIs where you want data mapping but with very low latency and high scalability. That was quite a surprise. The second was having an API catalog that could feed everything as first-class citizens.

You could have a Swagger File, a GraphQL query schema, a socket, an async API, or data mappings. Being able to catalog a bunch of related integration artifacts for reuse and get feedback seemed very effective to me.

It's pretty cryptic for a new user to learn the ropes and do basic things. The solution could be improved in educational and onboarding areas.

I have been using MuleSoft API Manager for three weeks.

I spent my first 20 years at the big three banks, Bank of America, Chase, and Citibank. Thousands of people used the solution in those places. Around 200 to 300 people are directly using the solution in my current organization.

You can instantiate Java-based GraphQL, orchestration and data mapping, or Envoy-based Flex Gateways. The Flex Gateway provides high throughput and scalability, but it's meant for a very focused use case. The ESB Java-based features are very flexible, but they're still pretty scalable.

One unique thing about MuleSoft API Manager compared to Azure is that it has all the components within that ESP. Azure API management makes you call out to other islands within the Microsoft ecosystem. The architecture leads to better scalability and availability with the MuleSoft API Manager approach.

My goal is to create a world-class API. I'm trying to achieve things like end-to-end traceability, observability, strong authentication, or granular authorization. The documentation does not clearly explain how to scaffold and automate the full set of reusable use cases.

If you carefully analyze it, the solution's pricing will be the same as other tools. The solution looks more expensive on the surface because it builds all the functions into one core component or into an integrated suite of components. You get a richer set of full life cycle tooling. You're paying upfront for the scalability.

If you use a cloud like Azure, you send transactions to multiple different services, eventually totaling up to a similar amount of money. However, you'd be locked into one cloud provider with that approach instead of being multi-cloud.

I would recommend the solution to other users. In the last few weeks, I've learned so much that I didn't know existed. I see the solution's holistic benefits, especially for people revamping most of their company's API ecosystem. The solution does present some compelling benefits.

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