Mule ESB vs. WildFly

Well Suited for:

• REST APIs.
• Rapid API Development.
• Most suitable for integration with SFDC.
• Batch processing.
• Parallel processing.

Less appropriate for:

• Integration with Database.
• Exposing SOAP services.
• Small organizations, because it is super costly.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• Logging the Database query in production with out changing the log4j level

Incentivized

Hands down, Mule is more cost-effective than Informatica, either on-prem or cloud, and the value only goes up form there. Reusability and ease of creation makes in-house training simple and the end result is we leverage Mule for much more than what we initially considered it for. Having used Oracle and TIBCO before as well, I find they are the tools of yesterday, not able to keep up in terms of functionality or price. Jitterbit would be a more relevant comparison, but Mule won out in the bake-off we did between them.

Incentivized

• 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

Incentivized