What users are saying about
24 Ratings
21 Ratings
24 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 7.5 out of 101
21 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.6 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Apache Camel

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.
No photo available

Mule ESB

Mule works well in a large enterprise. Smaller companies may want to look at the Open Source version which lowers the investment. Mule handles complicated and straight forward transactions well. Mule Support can assist with foundational components and design paradigms, making it easier for developers to be on-boarded to build out the services required by the Business Unit.
No photo available

Pros

  • The Java DSP is one of the primary reasons we chose Camel over Spring Integration's XML-based route definitions. It provides compile-time checking of syntax with auto-complete in an IDE (Eclipse, etc).
  • The component documentation on the website is phenomenal.
  • Error handling mechanisms are robust and easy to use and set up. Default settings are great and intuitive.
  • The ability to define distinct contexts within the same application and define context-wide, context-specific error handling is great as well.
No photo available
  • As an ESB it provides great flexibility to add/remove systems in the integration easily. Highly scalable.
  • Supports any kind of system to be integrated, Supports Java.
  • Lightweight.
Ankit Goyal profile photo

Cons

  • I find the "seda" endpoint to be less obvious that it is doing multi-threading than Spring Integration's executor mechanism.
  • Integration with Spring Beans is pretty good, but I believe SI's is a bit better (for obvious reasons, both being Spring products).
  • SI's use support is probably a bit better/faster and I believe the user base is larger so that there are most questions/answers for SI on StackOverflow
No photo available
  • Anypoint Studio is the primary IDE to do the Mule ESB development. Although Anypoint Studio is a good tool, and makes the life of a developer very easy with its drag and drop features, it seems too slow at times. Running a slightly large application on the local machine is a bit of a pain because of the slowness of the IDE.
  • I personally feel the Database connector which Mule ESB provides is not very easy to use. It does not fetch metadata from the database, which complicates the mapping. Calling a stored procedure from Mule ESB is a very hectic task because one haa to write DTO classes for complex data types.
  • Documentation provided by Mulesoft doesn't seem complete and sufficient. Sometimes it's very hard understand the configuration of a particular component because most of the documentation doesn't have detailed description.
Deepak Kushwaha profile photo

Alternatives Considered

We did a comparison of the two products with an example application that tested about 10 distinct EIP pattern. We wrote Camel in XML and Java DSL and SI in XML. This was about 3 years ago. At the time, I found the threading model in SI to be more intuitive and Camel's seda. However, Camel's documentation at the time was far and away more complete (Wiki pages for Camel vs looking through XML schema for SI). Since the SI has improved their documentation. The main factor that I believe still sets Camel apart is the Java DSL. Writing routes is complicated enough, but doing so in XML would be just painful.
No photo available
It is a great product, just very expensive and did not have the connectors. For larger companies it works well and is very reliable, but it requires special skills and support staff to manage the performance and scaling attributes. Both tools can do the job, it just depends on the funding and the talent pool available
No photo available

Return on Investment

  • There was certainly a positive impact in terms of code maintainability and ease of implementing new messaging pipelines, however, it's a little difficult to quantify.
David McCann profile photo
  • Created a means to have a synergy with developers - quickly made us productive
  • Ease of integration with Mule connectors - quicker releases
  • Initial configuration was a challenge. Would have been more challenging without Mule Support
No photo available

Pricing Details

Apache Camel

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

Mule ESB

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details