Boomi vs. Mule ESB

Dell Boomi is well-suited as a middleware to talk between systems. I am a personal fan of Dell's products and I enjoy this service. Dell Boomi is very easy to use, even to the less technically-inclined user. It is less appropriate to use in one system alone, but users would still find it functional in one system alone because it helps manage the system's metadata and allows that system to be integrated with other systems in the future.

Incentivized

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

• Pre-built connectors to almost anything which greatly reduce time to release of your integration needs.
• Easy to use development platform with drag&drop features. Non-technical people could build simple integration processes in no time.
• Great user community where you can get quick help if needed. Boomi people hang around there a lot.

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

• More from a development perspective. It is always difficult to use the properties features. It takes a while to understand how the data/variables can be used across an integration.
• Dell Boomi should also invest more on API Management and not just seen as a ETL,ESB tool.
• Should roll out features more often based on users reviews.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

Dell Boomi has provided us with the ability to connect our campus together using our various existing platforms. There are many supported features and have yet to run into something that we cannot do. Its user interface is very intuitive which would allow users to begin developing fairly easily. There is a myriad of resources available

Incentivized

First of all, as a service (cloud service), we don't need to care about server maintenance any more, no worries about incorrect configurations, about down time. Second, for maintaining, we don't need a large team to do it. And of course, using Dell Boomi instead of manual transaction could help us to avoid people mistake while inputting data or doing transactions.

Incentivized

I would rate Dell Boomi as highly performant. We have used it for 4+ years and have not had any major issues with availability or speed. We also have not observed performance degradation when connecting it with other software solutions.

Incentivized

Boomi support was responsive and knowledgable, however being a closed cloud service, it doesn't have good community support. We found the learning curve to be steep and there aren't avenues like google, forums, or blogs that provide community driven insight into the product or how to go about designing solutions using the tool

Incentivized

MuleSoft and Boomi are built on totally different frameworks. Mulesoft is an API-led network whereas Boomi is an ETL middleware approach. In easy words, Mulesoft can connect to several apps and business units, can create and reuse multiple components. Boomi offers only on-premise and on-cloud integration solutions whereas MuleSoft is capable of providing on-premise, on-cloud as well as hybrid solutions. We can say that MuleSoft is much more flexible and offers multiple integration solutions.

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

• ROI was flat. Coding directly in apps we were knowledgable in would have been faster, but maintenance higher.
• It brought good process to the integration team that was new, however I wouldn't say it was a huge gain monetarily. It is a valid path out of many paths for integration, but doesn't rule them all.

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