Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

• The description of the components that pop up when the mouse hovers over them

It helped in simulating the environment for testing for a very tedious project, which otherwise would have involved lot of manhours to test.

The REST test step could include other methods. The currently available ones are: PUT, POST, GET and DELETE. It would be great if the DELETE method could have the Content tab enabled so the request payload can be sent.

I have been using this product for 1.5 years.

We have not had stability issues.

We haven’t had much issues with scalability, but when I did once, the support team was very helpful in resolving the issue.

I rate technical support 4/5.

I have used LISA version 7.5, DevTest Solutions version 8.1 and am currently using DevTest 9.1. The tool always had some additional features included in each of its releases and it fixed the bugs of the previous release. That made migrating to the newer version more exciting.

Setup was straightforward. The instructions in the specification document were crisp and clear.

I did not evaluate other options.

It a great tool for simulating the service.

Service virtualization is the most valuable feature to me; it helped us to start the performance testing activities much earlier in the testing life cycle. It also reduces overall cost, as we can replace the expensive third-party services with virtual services.

• Helped us start performance testing much earlier in the STLC
• Shortens the performance testing period, as there is minimal component-level dependency
• Reduced cost per transaction in case of third-party virtualization
• Reduced schedule dependency, resulting in more productivity
• Enabled parallel development for the development team

It is difficult and requires a lot of manual effort to debug/troubleshoot any virtual service. The overall UI must improve and must be user friendly.

I have been using this solution for around 2.5 years.

We did not face any major issues related to deployment, stability or scalability.

The technical support was excellent. Other than that, through CA communities you can get answers to most of your queries or challenges.

The setup was straightforward and there are many supporting documents available on the CA site that guide you through the process.

It is a very good solution as it covers most of the transport and data protocols. The process of creating a virtual service is pretty straightforward and easy. The only drawback for this tool is its license cost.

Its integration capabilities with other external tools and technologies - such as Selenium, JDBC, external JARs (which can be placed in /HotDeploy and used) - is quite impressive, as is its wide range of support for various protocols, such as FTP, FTPS, HTTP to TCP, etc.

Because I have been exploiting its features for web service virtualization, I like the way it provides a quick and easy solution in that area. The ease with which a virtual service can be generated with minimal inputs and quick time makes it favorable.

Because I have been using this tool for web service virtualization, my development team relies heavily on me for the virtual service until the time the actual services are under development. This way, the tool provides a push to the agile methodology and has been great in achieving that.

In addition to a workstation, the tool has a web portal, with which (without getting into a lot of technicalities) one can generate virtual services quickly. However, even though it launched more than two years back, it still seems to be in beta version. Cross-browser support is not that good for that portal. On top of that, it doesn’t provide most of the features provided by workstation.

Coming back to the DevTest workstation, there are a few areas of improvement there as well. For instance, virtual services are not supposed to be of the same type all the time. With varying nature, DevTest fails to meet expectations sometimes.

I have been using CA DevTest for 2+ years now.

To date, I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support has been superb. 10/10 for that.

DevTest was the first tool we used for virtualization.

Initial setup was simple.

Because my enterprise team took care of all this, I cannot write much on this.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options.

Just go for this product if its features are capable of meeting your requirements.

There are many valuable features!

• Recording to build models, even from non-trivial sources.
• Ability to vary the responses very easily (randomize, pick-lists, etc.)
• Useful for performance testing — highly scalable and can vary response times.
• 100% flexibility by being able to change models.

We have many third-party dependencies. Situations we have to develop and test for include when they are down, or change their data, or don’t support certain conditions. This tool simulates them perfectly, but under our control to change and keep up 100%.

They can always work on usability and making simple things simple to do. This is true of every product that deals with complexity.

I have used CA Service Virtualization for nine years.

We have had no stability issues.

CA Service Virtualization provides impressive scaling abilities.

Technical support is excellent.

We had mock-up type products but they aren’t sophisticated enough.

The complexity of an install totally depends on what you are trying to virtualize. Sometimes configuring the security settings for recording is a pain but that’s not because of the product, it’s just a pain.

I don’t deal with pricing so I can’t help.

I didn’t evaluate other solutions. I was an early customer, they invented this space and delivered a great solution.

Make sure development gets involved. It’s more valuable the earlier it’s used in a dev cycle.

I use VSI, VSM, and SOA testing. I hardly use performance testing and automated GUI testing.

The tool is currently mostly focused on SOA-related and performance testing. Its GUI automation testing is not that powerful compared to other tools, such as HPE UFT, and Selenium, in terms of, particularly, object recognition, smart identification, results repository, frameworks driven, integration with test management repositories, and ETL testing.

Today, customers look for one consolidated vendor to manage licenses and best usage under TEM (Test Environment Management) services.

The following areas of the product have room for improvement: automated GUI testing, performance testing of various HTML5 applications and its recording capabilities. There are SAP, Siebel, Oracle Apps, Citrix, Remote Desktop and RTE applications that require a multi-faceted approach for sniffing the requests and preparing the scripts.

Additionally, it does not have a robust test management repository. This impacts connecting the various phases of testing life cycle.

We have stability issues when creating stubs for performance testing. It provides the internal native web server where the VSIs are hosted/deployed, which are not scalable at higher load. They should more flexible and able to use multiple application servers. Sometimes, the VSIs stop responding too.

There is a scalability issue regarding licenses. The Developer Edition should be free and only charge for the hosting licenses. There are charges even for transactions and hits also, which makes it difficult to track usage and optimization.

While basic questions are answered, it becomes difficult with tricky questions such as, is the request payload non-plain text or Java de-serialized objects, and about customizing them. When we approach support, they redirect us to professional services. We need more helpful support here.

We used SOAPUI Pro for when web services and JMS queues had to be mocked. We shifted to CA for other protocols. But customers are looking at the return on the investment they made. Convincing them becomes a challenge.

Initial setup was OK.

Licensing definitely needs more flexible models. Too many complicated parameters also makes it difficult for us to explain them to our customers. Pricing definitely is too high. Not sure if CA is aware of SOAPUI Mock Services – a free alternative. And, for Pro, it is only $120 per year. If a customer has only a Web Services context, CA should explain how to bring up that story.

We have evaluated several products more than once, starting with SOAPUI Pro, IBM RTVS (earlier Green Hat), and Parasoft Virtualize.

Virtual services

Efforts and time saving

Parsers, look and feel

5 years

I have not experienced any deployment issues

Very few but they were not blocker

6/10

7/10

We used rational integration tester. Switched because CA Service Virtualization (LISA) has some better features as compared to RIT.

It was simple

It was a joint venture

There are a number of tools that are available in the market for same purpose

Very good tool. Go for it...

Virtualization and Functional testing.

The product made a huge impact in the market which includes many solutions which offer virtualization, performance testing, pathfinder, and functional testing. Development and testing became faster. It improved CSR and ROI's for our customers.

The product is supported by custom extension coding. On the virtualization front, RIT (IBM) supports more protocols however it's not as user friendly as CA LISA. It would be great to see a new protocol which supports legacy feature.

3 years

For Virtualization, when the file size is too large (more than 1 GB) it takes more time for deployment and some times the tool hangs. We came up with ant utility to perform the deployment.

Only if the proper system requirements are not followed.

I have found that CA's customer support is good.

I would rate CA's technical support with 4 out of 5 stars.

We weren't previously using another solution but after analyzing various options we directly selected CA LISA.

Setup is straightforward, you just need to follow the installation guide.

We analyzed the tools on the market including: HP, IBM RIT and CA LISA. Each product has its own merits but we found that CA LISA is more mature and suites our requirement best so we selected it for our service virtualization needs.

It's a good product, try it out.

This helps my team in virtualizing responses so we are not dependent on the systems when they are down. It also helps in mocking up a new functionality and virtualizing it which may not be yet dev-delivered. We also tried to automate services using LISA, but faced numerous challenges.

We don’t see enough value in virtualizing the services just because it requires a huge amount of maintenance and there is not much support available online. I’d like to see a more simple approach to virtualizing the services.

We've used it for two years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

There have been no issues with the stability.

We've had no issues scaling it.

In my experience, I'd say that technical support is not so good.

We have not used other solutions other than using UFT for automation.

The initial setup was a little complex.

CA LISA was initially brought onsite for training, but after that all development was done onsite.

If you are using this for automation of web services, we found it hard to have a customized solution.