Apache Camel vs. Microsoft BizTalk Server

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Apache Camel
Score 6.5 out of 10
N/A
Apache Camel is an open source integration platform.N/A
Microsoft BizTalk
Score 6.4 out of 10
N/A
N/AN/A
Pricing
Apache CamelMicrosoft BizTalk Server
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache CamelMicrosoft BizTalk
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details——
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache CamelMicrosoft BizTalk Server
Top Pros
Top Cons
Best Alternatives
Apache CamelMicrosoft BizTalk Server
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Anypoint Platform
Anypoint Platform
Score 8.1 out of 10
Anypoint Platform
Anypoint Platform
Score 8.1 out of 10
Enterprises
TIBCO B2B Integration Solution
TIBCO B2B Integration Solution
Score 8.5 out of 10
TIBCO B2B Integration Solution
TIBCO B2B Integration Solution
Score 8.5 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache CamelMicrosoft BizTalk Server
Likelihood to Recommend
7.8
(11 ratings)
8.0
(7 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
7.0
(2 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
5.0
(3 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache CamelMicrosoft BizTalk Server
Likelihood to Recommend
Apache
Message brokering across different systems, with transactionality and the ability to have fine tuned control over what happens using Java (or other languages), instead of a heavy, proprietary languages. One situation that it doesn't fit very well (as far as I have experienced) is when your workflow requires significant data mapping. While possible when using Java tooling, some other visual data mapping tools in other integration frameworks are easier to work with.
Read full review
Microsoft
BizTalk is well suited as middleware. Where you wish to translate an input file into an output file and send it to some endpoint. In our case, we used it to convert and send files to SAP. In many ways, it very flexible, and you can do almost anything you want with it. In many ways, it's a better solution than your SAP XI or PI as middleware, since it's much less expensive, and allows you do interface with non-SAP systems.
Read full review
Pros
Apache
  • Camel has an easy learning curve. It is fairly well documented and there are about 5-6 books on Camel.
  • There is a large user group and blogs devoted to all things Camel and the developers of Camel provide quick answers and have also been very quick to patch Camel, when bugs are reported.
  • Camel integrates well with well known frameworks like Spring, and other middleware products like Apache Karaf and Servicemix.
  • There are over 150 components for the Camel framework that help integrate with diverse software platforms.
  • Camel is also good for creating microservices.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • It is very user friendly. Users can change rules during run time and change workflow.
  • Huge capacity for queueing messages. It supports all types of adapters like Oracle, Salesforce, SMTP, FTP, etc. Also users can built custom adaptors.
  • If users want to dynamically deploy their solution without any downtime, this is a perfect solution. BizTalk will be a good fit, especially for public-facing websites.
  • Well-proven in the market. I used it when developing a website for Virgin Trains, catering more than 800K user requests per day.
  • Helps in load balancing.
Read full review
Cons
Apache
  • didn't work well when our developers tried to transform heavy data sets
  • Apache Camel's whole logic is based on java so team needs to have a great skill set in java
  • if there are a handful of workflows then Apache Camel's full potential can't be realized
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Microsoft BizTalk is over engineered for some situtations
  • Microsoft BizTalk can be frustrating to use as it forces you to use the GUI as opposed to code
  • Microsoft BizTalk is very resource intensive to create integrations
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Apache
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
BizTalk will always be required at this hospital.
Read full review
Usability
Apache
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
I gave a 7 because this product BizTalk does need time and training to get familiar with the usability and features, it is not that easy to use.
Read full review
Support Rating
Apache
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
BizTalk Server has been supported for more than 15 years. It is well proven in the market. Microsoft has provided excellent support with technical issues.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Apache
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
Make sure you have everybody and all depts. On board during testing on test server.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache
If you are looking for a Java-based open source low cost equivalent to webMethods or Azure Logic Apps, Apache Camel is an excellent choice as it is mature and widely deployed, and included in many vendored Java application servers too such as Redhat JBoss EAP. Apache Camel is lacking on the GUI tooling side compared to commercial products such as webMethods or Azure Logic Apps.
Read full review
Microsoft
BizTalk was selected here mainly because it is easy to integrate to a .NET application (most of them are Web Service, WCF SOAP, WCF REST and Web API) and many backend databases are Microsoft SQL Server. Another benefit is that the monitoring job is easy to set up and centralize with other .NET application monitoring jobs.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Apache
  • Very fast time to market in that so many components are available to use immediately.
  • Error handling mechanisms and patterns of practice are robust and easy to use which in turn has made our application more robust from the start, so fewer bugs.
  • However, testing and debugging routes is more challenging than working is standard Java so that takes more time (less time than writing the components from scratch).
  • Most people don't know Camel coming in and many junior developers find it overwhelming and are not enthusiastic to learn it. So finding people that want to develop/maintain it is a challenge.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • A positive impact has been the quicker turnaround time of a part request and that part showing up in SAP using Biztalk as middleware.
  • A somewhat negative impact has been the somewhat insufficient error logging/message capture settings that Biztalk provide. This has caused occasional delays when attempted to create parts for the business.
  • A somewhat negative impact has been the need to have a specialized developer who understands Biztalk to troubleshoot issues with the Biztalk and SAP interaction when creating parts, and when adding new fields to the parts.
Read full review
ScreenShots