Mule ESB vs. UiPath Integration Service

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

Areas where it would be appropriate:

1. If you want a really 'deep' integration with a third party software, and you want all the control over how it interacts with your software
2. If you want a totally white-labeled solution, that is totally invisible to your customers.
3. if you care more about a well thought out/useful API, rather than a pretty UI

Areas where it is less appropriate:

1. If you want a Zapier-esque hands-off integration for YOU.
2. if you want your customers to do more of the work, pay for it/etc.
3. if you're a really small business, it could be too expensive. But it depends on your individual contract with them.

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

• Customer Support -- They have a knowledgeable team and are very responsive.
• Communication -- Most questions are addressed quickly
• Documentation -- The API documentation is well organized and easy to follow.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• There weren't really many cons to our experience. The only slight downside was the cost but they worked with us on that to make it work.

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

MuleSoft is also a similar product to Cloud Elements, but is not available as an option in this form.

Workato and MuleSoft are competing cloud API connector platforms that perform a similar function to Cloud Elements. We chose Cloud Elements over them because CE provided a more robust path to unifying the behavior of connected systems.

Zapier is a workflow automation tool that I feel draws erroneous comparison to Cloud Elements that I need to highlight. Workflow automation tools (Zapier, IFTTT, Microsoft Flow) do provide multiple integrations, but for simplistic scenarios where only a handful of explicitly described steps need accomplished. Cloud Elements is a platform for developers to deliver faster and with higher reliability than making integrations one-by-one in complex systems that solve demanding problems.

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

• We are able to build integrations in HALF the time we could build them from scratch.
• They allow our development team to spend more hours focused on developing our core product, not connections to other products.
• Their large catalog of services to connect to allows us to spend much less time researching other platform integration endpoints and increases our R&D speed a considerable amount.

Incentivized