We performed a comparison between Broadcom Service Virtualization and OpenText Service Virtualization based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, OpenText, SmartBear and others in Service Virtualization."The most valuable features include the capability to use other program languages such as PLSQR, JAVA, .NET."
"Scalability has actually worked well and we are able to bring it to multiple environments."
"Easy to understand ways of creating stubs."
"Ability to vary the responses very easily (randomize, pick-lists, etc.)."
"The innovation is amazing. CA has continued to add to services that it supports, the transports that it supports, and has built all of the enterprise capabilities into the product as well."
"I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable."
"The ability to create virtual services and deploy them as Docker containers, and include them in our Jenkins build pipelines, is a valuable feature."
"CA Service Virtualization has helped us advance the development cycle when third-party interfaces are not available to us."
"It is easy to use. This is what I tell my customers. The coding is easier to develop as well."
"The most valuable feature is SAP virtualization."
"The most valuable feature is that it reduces the dependency so that the down time of the environment is not a major cost. That cost can be used for something else like the cloud."
"The support for integration patterns and the ease of use to wizard-based utility is what I would consider the most important features for service virtualization platforms."
"The feature which is most valuable in this solution is the ease of use. The product is very easy to use and very easy to implement."
"DevTest is pretty massive. It's hard to tell what different parts of it can be used to do different things. They should modulize it more."
"I would rate the tech support a nine out of ten. They need more knowledge about the connectivity to DevOps orchestration."
"They can always work on usability and making simple things simple to do. This is true of every product that deals with complexity."
"From a reporting perspective I think we would like to have a more user-friendly approach."
"CA actually releases a new version every year. We had issues with the upgrade prior to the latest one."
"The cost is an area that needs improvement. There are a couple of other tools which provide support for performance testing with the base version itself, but Broadcom needs a separate component to support virtualization for performance testing. This is a costly component."
"UI should be more user friendly: better usability, more testing oriented."
"I would like to have more flexibility towards the mainframe virtualization and also in JDBC virtualization."
"More support for different protocols. I would love to see more wizards rather than relying on some custom coding, which you can use C# as well as Visual Basic scripting. In the service virtualization platform, I would love to see more wizard features as well as the ability to connect to an external database, which by the way, we have put an enhancement request in for. I'd love to see that in the service virtualization platform."
"The current protocol needs to be updated to be much more flexible. The product needs more technical flexibility in implementation and customization."
"The monitoring feature is not impressive because they use Windows for so much monitoring. They set a lock on the window, and then we have to gather the information from the main monitoring feature in the Windows server. There is not enough capacity for problem solving performance issues."
"The integration with other solutions, such as ALM and Jira, should be improved."
"HPE products are good, but they never make a product for a specific use. They make a product for the enterprise because that is their vision. They like multi-generational business plans. That means that they don't deliver small bits and pieces, but rather, they deliver to the enterprise."
More Broadcom Service Virtualization Pricing and Cost Advice →
More OpenText Service Virtualization Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Service Virtualization is ranked 1st in Service Virtualization with 97 reviews while OpenText Service Virtualization is ranked 2nd in Service Virtualization with 22 reviews. Broadcom Service Virtualization is rated 8.2, while OpenText Service Virtualization is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Broadcom Service Virtualization writes "Feature-rich, easy to configure and set up, and the support is good". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Service Virtualization writes "Is scalable and easy to use, but the monitoring feature needs improvement". Broadcom Service Virtualization is most compared with ReadyAPI Test, Parasoft Virtualize, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server and Tricentis Tosca, whereas OpenText Service Virtualization is most compared with Parasoft Virtualize and ReadyAPI Virtualization.
See our list of best Service Virtualization vendors.
We monitor all Service Virtualization reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Yes, HP's product in this domain is called, HP Service Virtualization
Hello,
Also, I’d like to add that “HP Service test” mentioned below is a tool for functional integration (API) testing, but not for Service Virtualization. Please, pay attention to it.
Thank you.
Ok so let me ask you guys Does HP has the capability of virtualization ? Do they they virtualization like other product ( lisa, parasoft, green hat etc ).
HP Service Test and CA Lisa are not comparable products.
HP Service Test is comparable to Soap UI- create scripts/tests that drive data to a web service.
HP Service Test is one of three products in the HP Unified Functional Testing Suite: what used to be Quick Test Professional, Service Test and Service Test Manager.
Hello,
Unfortunately, I don’t have experience in CA Lisa SV.
However, I have evaluated HP SV and have an opinion about it – I can share my thoughts if you need, but I don’t think that it will help you to answer the question.
“What needs to be considered when comparing them?”
Of course a lot is depends on your necessities, but for the most of cases it doesn’t matter what tools you are going to compare – I believe that all the needs are the same because of the domain area (SV in this case).
- Number of Protocols supported
- Record and Reproduce possibility
- Create virtual services from scratch
- Easiness of installing, configuring and using
- Extended possibilities for creation more complex virtual endpoints (db support, data stores, team using, etc.)
- Other deeper criteria
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Dzianis Sushko
EPAM Integration Competency Center