Apache Camel vs Mule ESB

• 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.

Read full review

• 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.

Read full review

• 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

Read full review

• 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.

Read full review

• 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.

Read full review

• 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

Read full review