Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

Ability to virtualize webservices, MQ, JDBC

We have saved a lot in terms of the time it takes to test data setup infrastructure and turn around time for testing.

As of today, none of the Microsoft technologies are supported.

2 Years

Customer Service is swift and tries to get to the bottom of the issue. Most issues are solved within two days.

Initial set up might be a bit complex, especially when you are going with an enterprise level setup. However it is a one time effort and is very smooth afterwords.

Service Virtualization

We use CA Service Virtualization to stub out various downstream systems, it helps to reduce the environment contention with other downstream testing teams.

Load & Performance Testing. It is not as good as other tools like HP Performance Center, SilkPerformer, etc.

2 years

No issues with deployment.

No, it is pretty stable. It can handle 400tps on our server.

No, it was expanded to support multiple teams.

Customer Service:

I never contacted the customer service.

Technical Support:

I never contacted the technical support.

Yes, we previously used other solutions but switched to CA Service Virtualization because it supports more protocols. We were looking at SoupUI but it only supports web services while CA Service Virtualization supports mainframe and other protocols.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup but I heard we had some issues with building SSL services initially.

In-house

Virtualization is useful for system testing where the test applications are not integrated.

Service virtualization is beneficial as it allows system and integration testing to be done, without depending on a fully available environment. This allows continuous integration and continuous testing

Productivity has improved due to automation of system test cases.

HPE ALM integration could be better, especially for exporting/importing/reusing test cases written in an older version of CA Service Virtualization. The rework effort to update test cases is high.

I used it for two years; we have upgraded to version 8.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

N/A. v5 was end of support.

Initial setup was complex. CA SV scripting has an initial learning curve.

• High initial learning curve
• Benefits in system testing through virtualization

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.

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 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.

• 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.

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.