Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

The solution helps us develop applications faster.

We get things done better and faster. I think everybody benefits from that.

We need to get more and more types of services because this is a multidisciplinary platform. CA can develop more services in it.

Stability is good.

We haven't upgraded to any new versions, so we have been using the same platform. I don't really have an opinion about that yet.

We don’t use technical support. We use local providers.

When deciding which service virtualization vendor to go with, experience is the most important thing.

Benchmark the tools, ask your peers, ask about people’s field experiences. I think that's what I'd do.

From a business perspective, CA was a good deal.

• Service virtualization (the virtual services created): Virtual service models are very well described and hence able to understand properly.
• Record and playback
• Creating VS from the DevTest console
• Magic string and data de-sensitization and model healing
• Reusing raw traffic files
• Wide range of protocol support, such as HL7 and many others

This product helps some of our customers achieve agility and delivery effectiveness.

The overall installation architecture should be simplified. There are so many components involved in the overall installation and the starting process. They should be made internal, such as:

• Enterprise Dashboard
• Registry
• Portal Broker
• VSE

Instead of all these being manual and optional, they should be compulsory, internal processes.

I have used it for four years.

I did not encounter any stability issues, as such.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is 8 out of 10.

I previously used a different solution, just to explore it.

As a services organization, we need to have hands-on experience with different products, so that we can give different customers our point of view.

Initial setup was straightforward.

This is the first product in the line that we have used.

I always recommend this tool.

It's simplified the automation process for SOA testing, where the tool provides most of the testing feature in-built, and the time spent on script development for automation is reduced.

We can now focus on the testing and providing customers with good coverage of requirements. The maintenance of automation suites is easier in Service Virtualization.

UI testing needs improvements.

I've used it for three to four years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

We have not had any stability issues.

We have not had any issues scaling it.

I have not interacted with the CA Service Virtualization support team because we have the CoE team where our issues will be routed through them.

We were using SoapUI (this is also one of the strongest base tools for SOA testing), which is limited to the testing of web services. Service Virtualization provides a different world of opportunities in SOA testing, which helps us to provide a better SOA solution to clients.

The setup was a little complex, but it is ongoing. When we get into the tool, we feel it's easy to proceed with it.

We implemented it in-house.

Its price is a little high when compared to similar tools.

It's one of the best products for SOA testing, virtualization, and middleware.

• It supports virtualization for different combinations of transport and data protocols.

• It's easy to script for protocols that CA SV doesn't provide out of the box because it provides various ways to do so. Either by using scriptable data protocol, custom Javascript step or the CA SV SDK feature. CA provides a platform to use existing plus extended features all together.
• CA SV SDK, fllexibility to extend the tool.

• One stop solution to remove constraints. It supports most of the protocols used by different industries and they provide support to develop in scenarios where there is an exception.
• Having this tool as part of the organization gives thought to how individuals can efficiently remove dependencies and reduce time to market.

• VSE Console should be more user friendly.
• Versioning of Virtual Services as well as Projects.

2.5 years

No, but I have tried exploring IBM and HP tools but found that the ease of use, maturity and user friendliness of CA SV can't be compared.

The new version of LISA (6 and higher) has an auto generator for stubs based on WSDL, WADL, messages request-response pairs etc.

We are a reseller of this product so this isn't really relevant for me, but our customers use our stubs for deployment of their real production applications.

3 years

Deployment of stubs has been improved in the latest version and has become very easy.

Customer Service: CA is a great company who deliver great service to their customers as well as to us as a Partner.Technical Support: CA has a great technical support team who really take control of a problem until it is solved.

Setup is not too complicated. You do need to follow the course before starting to develop stubs though.

If you need stubs to help your development/testing this could be a great tool for you.

• 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.

Web service, MQ and IMS virtualization. The tool has many built in filters and assertions which helped us create better virtual services.

Due to the virtual services, the overall release cycle became shorter and it also saved us a lot of money.

IMS services in version 7.5.2 are quite unstable.

Also, the Javascript step doesn't support all Java methods.

6 months

We didn't encounter any issues with deployment.

We didn't find any issues with stability either.

Sometimes during load testing even though we have enough space on the server, CA SV is not able to handle higher loads. (We are still working on this issue. Root cause has not yet been identified.)

Customer Service:

Customer service is good.

Technical Support:

It's good but CA doesn't support custom extensions so we did not get much support on IMS services issues we have.

It has helped manual and performance testing teams to complete their testing ahead of schedule.

Reporting needs to be improved for both manual and performance testing.

I've been using it for 46 months, and am currently working on setting up an environment for v8.

There were a few issues during deployment because of missing jar files.

There were issues with the older versions, until v6.1.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

Very good, 8/10.

Technical Support:

Very good, 8/10.

No previous solution was used.

It's straightforward, just follow the user manual provided on the CA website.

We implemented it in-house.

Clients were able to save $700k and three million GBP in the first year of using the solution.

It took us 14 man days to set up.

No other options were considered.

Easy to implement with lot of built-in features.