Apache Camel vs. Mule ESB

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Apache Camel
Score 6.3 out of 10
N/A
Apache Camel is an open source integration platform.N/A
Mule ESB
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Mule ESB, from Mulesoft, is an open source middleware solution.N/A
Pricing
Apache CamelMule ESB
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Apache CamelMule ESB
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 CamelMule ESB
TrustRadius Insights
Apache CamelMule ESB
Highlights

TrustRadius
Research Team Insight
Published

Apache Camel and Mule ESB are both integration platforms designed to help developers create connections between different pieces of software. Both platforms are open-source, but they differ significantly in their implementation of the open-source model. Apache Camel is a free standalone program supported solely by its community of developers. Mule ESB is the runtime engine of MuleSoft’s Anypoint Platform, a licensed and professionally-supported product. Both products are primarily used by enterprise-level organizations, who have more time, budget, and business need for custom-built integrations when compared to smaller companies..

Features

Although both Apache Camel and Mule ESB allow developers to create customized software integrations, their user interfaces and architecture are very different.

Apache Camel uses a code-based interface that will be familiar to most developers with experience writing code. Users can create their integrations in a variety of languages, including XML configuration files and domain-specific languages (DSLs). Apache Camel has a robust developer community with a wide array of accumulated experience, skills, and tutorials available. And with a free license, Apache Camel has the lowest possible upfront cost, requiring no purchase to start using.

Mule ESB, on the other hand, has the backing and support of a professional company. Besides traditional customer support, MuleSoft offers dedicated architects that can consult and assist with implementation and development. The software uses a quickly-learnable visual interface and includes quality-of-life and convenience features to help new developers get started. Customers also report that MuleSoft is responsive to customer feedback and general trends in the integration world, releasing relevant, helpful updates to their platform.

Limitations

With such different user experiences, it’s natural that Apache Camel and Mule ESB won’t be suitable for every developer or business. Be sure to take their limitations into account before choosing one or the other.

Apache Camel’s text-based development may be comfortable for experienced developers, but it can obfuscate the learning process for new users, especially if they’re just getting started in integration development. Since Apache Camel is free and relies on the open-source community for support, developers must spend time and energy building proficiency in the software, and a business will need to keep in-house experts to maintain and develop integrations.

Mule ESB, as a licensed product, can be costly. The cost of licensing compounds with the price of advanced technical support, especially if your business requires a dedicated architect to assist with setup and development. And an architect might be necessary: some users with advanced requirements reported that initial setup was complicated and difficult, and that mis-configuration could cause significant development problems. Finally, the platform can sometimes suffer from unexplained slowdowns and general instability, and is difficult to troubleshoot.

Pricing

Apache Camel is offered as open-source software under the Apache License 2.0 and can be downloaded for free.

MuleSoft ESB is included with MuleSoft’s Anypoint Platform, which uses a tiered annual subscription pricing model. The Gold tier offers the Mule ESB runtime engine and visual design tools. The Platinum tier increases customer support priority, adds enterprise-level functionality such as cloud deployment, SSO, and role-based permissions. The Titanium tier offers the maximum customer support priority, data analysis features, and advanced logging and tracing tools. Specific pricing details are available via a quote from MuleSoft.

Best Alternatives
Apache CamelMule ESB
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Medium-sized Companies
Boomi
Boomi
Score 8.9 out of 10
Anypoint Platform
Anypoint Platform
Score 7.8 out of 10
Enterprises
TIBCO B2B Integration Solution
TIBCO B2B Integration Solution
Score 8.0 out of 10
Anypoint Platform
Anypoint Platform
Score 7.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache CamelMule ESB
Likelihood to Recommend
7.9
(0 ratings)
9.8
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache CamelMule ESB
Likelihood to Recommend
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
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.
Read full review
Pros
  • open source and a great set of component feature set - always latest features available for integration
  • works well with spring boot
  • great community and support for any kind of workflow
  • based on enterprise integration patterns which helps our developers achieve integration tasks with all kinds of API services
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
Cons
  • Some of the documentation is a little sparse. In particular, its TCP-based routes use an underlying Netty server, and the interactions between Netty's decoder capabilities and Apache Camel's routing/handler capabilities can be a little muddy at times. In general it is clear which routes and endpoints are the more frequently used and which haven't been given as much attention.
Read full review
  • Logging the Database query in production with out changing the log4j level
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache Camel has been the integration framework of choice, but I was not the person to make the decision to use it. Compared to other competing products like Tibco Business Works, etc., it is free and open source and its licensing policy is acceptable to the management of Cox.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 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
  • 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
ScreenShots