Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

CA Service Virtualization has helped us advance the development cycle when third-party interfaces are not available to us. We're able to simulate that activity. Working with the developers, we're able to get our testing site done in advance, so that when the integration starts, we're able to get further down the testing path with our third-party vendors.

We are able to get further testing on a couple of interfaces. We do a lot of third-party request out for a loan; fraud verification; credit bureau. A lot of times, those data setup and data needs take a longer period of time than what maybe we have, so we're able to virtualize both the credit bureaus and some of our fraud facilities to get the testing done.

Also, facilitating in the training environments, where training environments are typically used part time, you don't want necessarily to have all the hardware and software laying around part-time. We're able to virtualize those interfaces.

I'd like to see more of the newer technologies included in there, looking mainly from a mobile perspective, possibly, so you can virtualize some of the aspects that we're going to be doing for mobile testing.

As far as the stability, I've used CA Service Virtualization now for eight years, so it's been pretty stable.

It's able to scale. It's easy to scale CA Service Virtualization because of the way the services can be placed onto a platform. You could have a couple of services running on one server and if you have a high demand, you could put them on another server. You're able to have many services running across the organization. They don't have to be co-located.

I've not used technical support. The ladies and gentlemen who work for me are able to stand up the situation. We did do an engagement with CA and we brought them in probably for about three months in early 2016 to help with some of the more complex virtualizations.

We didn't have a previous solution. I've been with the company about 18 months and came in the early part of 2015. We're fortunate enough to get in with our General Motors ELA and I got the licenses for us to be able to start doing the CA SV setup for 2016.

I wouldn't say initial setup is straightforward. You have to have a little background, engineering knowledge, about how it operates. I know my team accomplished it working with CA in relatively short order.

For the service virtualization, especially, a lot of times, we are asked to stand up environments and those will take time; you have to purchase hardware and software. I think if they start looking to CA SV as a solution, we can stand it up rapidly and usually solve the situation in a short order of time, saving both green dollars and hours of setup, for the particular hardware database, whatever you're trying to setup.

My rating reflects the flexibility that it gives, the easy deployment and the easy maintenance of it. It is probably one of the better tools on the market for virtualization. I've seen several.

Virtualizing mainframe systems. Reducing dependency on mainframe capacity and availability, which is a major roadblock for us right now.

The virtualization is primarily performed by eliminating the back end mainframe system. So we can read out our API traffic to the virtualized system. Basically, we don't have to use the mainframe while our service is virtualized.

It helps us with work/life balance. If we didn't have that CA Service Virtualization, we would have to run our performance tests during the night, because that's when the mainframe is least used. For our team members it helps them to maintain a better work/life balance, as they can execute their tests in the daytime so they don't have to spend the weekends and nights doing so.

To us, right now, it is going to be reducing the capacity limitation on mainframe, because we are highly dependent on mainframe capacity which is not easily available to us.

Regarding additional features for future releases, that is something we'll come to know when we start using it at full scale. But so far, we're pretty content with what has been offered.

In terms of improvements, I think a little bit more of use cases from existing clients. That could show that it's a workable solution used with other clients as well.

Stability is pretty good so far. We have used it across our organization in different teams. So the next step for us is to bring it to performance testing.

Scalability is the next factor we have to judge, because this system has to handle a large amount of load, so we'll have to see what the scalability is going to be. But based on the reviews and research, we think it's going to be as per of our expectations.

We have had business partners, account managers, come and do the PoC for us, proof of concept, so we have used their support. 

Support has been great so far. They have come to the table whenever we needed them. They have provided all the support in a timely manner so, so far so good.

We made the move because of a constraint that we have today. It's a constraint with mainframe capacity and availability. This is basically an opportunity for us to remove that constraint and that's why we need Service Virtualization.

We have completed the PoC, so I would say since we haven't completely set it up. So far, whatever the setup has done, we're satisfied with it.

We evaluated other options, I'd say lightly, very lightly, because we have used CA within our company from a while. We know that they are the market leader, we know there are probably not many competitors for the tool that we want to use.

When selecting a vendor what's important to us is 

• a relationship with the vendor
• their response to us in a timely manner and
• especially, their being established, having proven their solution with other clients.

I give it an eight out of 10, based on our experience so far. Once we use it at full scale, we'll come to know if there are any more improvements or challenges that need to be addressed.

I would tell colleagues to keep CA as the number one priority to research because they are the market leader and have the most experience, based on our research. I think they should be one of the top contenders for service virtualization.

The DevTest Workstation (JMS steps) and CA Service Virtualization are the most valuable features.

By using the DevTest tool, we have successfully automated the testing in the Dev and QM spaces. We have also carried out virtualization of a few systems and intend to apply it on a larger scale in future.

There is need to improve the DevTest Workstation with UI-based testing features.

I have used this solution for one year.

It was easy to deploy, as proper documentation and additional support was provided by CA.

The product has been stable and patches have been provided on a regular basis.

The product has scaled to our needs.

The customer service was excellent.

The technical support was excellent.

Previously, we were using Java-based, homegrown tools for our automation processes.

Initial setup was complex, as we were new to the tool and to reach the current scenario, a learning curve in terms of the tool was required.

A PoC was carried out with a CA Service Virtualization technical resource and he met our expectations.

Applying automation using the DevTest Workstation for automation of middleware validation, has decreased manual effort by 40%.

We looked at the HPE UFT software.

You should try to do a PoC and then go through different use cases in order to understand where exactly this tool is applicable in your enterprise.

Using the agile method, each iteration is scheduled to last 1-2 weeks and development would take up most of that. The testers didn't have enough time to properly test the application. With Service Virtualization, we virtualized the services and we brought quality into the agile iteration “extreme left”, and we started early testing.

That's how we got enough time to test the product. Service Virtualization helped us by using marks and stops. We are easily integrating with other applications and we are performing integration testing seamlessly. Before implementing Service Virtualization, services were not always available because of infrastructure issues or iteration time schedules. Service Virtualization removed all these problems that we were facing in the industry and allowed us to quickly do our job.

We not only use Service Virtualization for web services, we also use it to virtualize services that we used to pay for. It can be used in the enterprise bus to integrate external applications. In the QA domain, you need to pay a lot to use their services. Service Virtualization can save you this money.

For example, I have previous experience with the financial and insurance industries. In the financial sector, we integrate with third-party credit agencies to check credit scores. You still need to pay for these services even when you are only testing your application. If you virtualize that functionality, you don't need to talk to them, and you don't need to be dependent on their system availability.

We still have mainframe systems and while CA provides instructions on how to integrate Linux-based applications, they don’t provide integration steps for mainframe.

We would like to see improvements in mobile integration. Integration is partial, but we would like to have full-fledged functionality. Android mobile solutions are out there, so you can download an app and have full-fledged mobile coverage. You can set the model and Android operating system. But we can’t integrate these with development testing. If we get that feature, we don't need to look at other products like HPE Mobile Center, or something else. Having mobile would be good for us.

We are also looking for more knowledge to share with our developers, and others, on how to use Selenium scripts within CA Service Virtualization. The process is pretty simple. You build everything in Selenium, convert the script to JSON, and dump it to Service Virtualization; alternatively, copy the script and put it in CA Service Virtualization steps. But these guidelines are not clear enough. Clarifying this process would definitely be a benefit for CA.

Service Virtualization is pretty stable.

We are in the financial industry and process a large number of transactions. Every second, we process around 78,000 transactions; every second counts. Sometimes, especially when the servers are down, our message queues will accumulate hundreds of thousands of messages. When the issue is resolved and the gates are open, all those messages will flood the system. We tested all these things with CA Performance Testing. In real time, we cannot test using Service Virtualization, but we built all the messages, and the message queues, and we tested by opening the gates. We found that scalability is also pretty good.

Calling technical support works out good. But the website search function could be improved a lot. Their knowledge management system is not up to the mark. The search functionality really needs to be improved. CA has to really spend some time looking into that. Depending on the search, the content can be very limited. I would like to see examples and links to the documentation. The current search function is not detailed enough.

I'm a systems architect. I had a lot of experience with the development infrastructure architecture. I see that there are problems in all production areas. I always do research on the latest and greatest products. CA is one of the companies I've been following for almost 15 years. I discovered Service Virtualization when I learned that CA acquired ITKO.

I was involved in the initial setup at a different client. It was pretty straightforward, I never faced any issues, and in fact I purchased myself a license from CA, spending a lot of money on this. I was a good investment for me. I'm very passionate about technology. I have bought a lot of software, but it is worthwhile spending money on this.

We also use HPE for testing right now, particularly Mobile Center. Not every product will address 100% of the issues.

However, CA Service Virtualization is totally number one in the market, no one comes close to this. HPE introduced a product recently, but they're nowhere close. They need to spend a lot of time on that product.

Definitely look at the capabilities of your application initially. Everything depends on that. I can say that Service Virtualization really helps you to reduce time spent testing, and improves the quality in the agile process. If you are not using this, I advise you just have a look. Definitely you'll like it, and you'll implement it.

The ability to virtualize test environments. This allows us to test on an environment without having to wait for time windows, thus eliminating a bottleneck in a traditional shared test system.

It eliminates bottlenecks in the test system sharing.

It is complex technology which takes a high end skillset to set up. You are very dependent on consultants from CA or a small subset of CA partners to implement CA Service Virtualization in the beginning. The training offered by CA is also not up to par. It is not realistic to expect that you can purchase CA Service Virtualization, send a couple of folks to CA training, and get yourself up an running with CA Service Virtualization environments without outside help.

I've been using CA Service Virtualization for more than three years

Yes, we had to thoroughly train and vet the engineers that we hired as CA Service Virtualization consultants. We were partners with ITKO, the original developer of CA Service Virtualization, prior to CA acquiring them. The ITKO development team worked closely with us for more than 6 months to get the team ready. Finding the right skillset was key, plus investing the time to train them properly. In the end we built a lab and the successful engineers gained experience through practice.

No, the product is very reliable.

No, the product allows for great scalability.

I would rate customer service from CA to be very low AFTER you have purchased the software. They are great before you buy, and disappear afterwards. However, I will caveat this by saying the CA Tech support for Service Virtualization is very good. Just don't expect any warm and fuzzy customer service.

We had a fairly mature testing consulting practice for more than ten years based on Mercury's platform (Quality Center, now owned by HP). We still use Quality Center extensively and have added CA Service Virtualization to our 'tool bag'. We did not purchase CA Service Virtualization as a replacement for any product we were using. We viewed CA Service Virtualization as a game changer, giving us the ability to add test environment virtualization in order to reduce test cycles for our clients.

It was very complex initially, once you have one or two people on board that gain experience setting up environments, you will eventually be self sufficient. Expect to use outside professional services for the initial implementation though. Don't let the vendor's sales people convince you to buy just the software, some training and "starter pack" services. The services and training will not be enough. A more realistic approach is to rent qualified engineers for the first project or two where you are going to leverage CA Service Virtualization. Send your own staff to training and have them work alongside the consultants for these initial projects. after a project or two, your team will become self sufficient.

Initially we learned through the vendor, which took 6 months and was expensive. The ITKO team was very good. However, many of them left CA after the acquisition. There are a couple of partners in the CA channel who are also very good.

It is hard to put a dollar figure on it. If you have multiple large development efforts and are sharing common test environments, CA Service Virtualization is a huge benefit because you don't have to schedule your testing based on when the test system is available. However, if you are a smaller shop with one development team who works serially, CA Service Virtualization is overkill.

This varies greatly across several clients. CA will offer a fairly good discount because they are motivated to sell right now. The consulting rates can be high, because the population of skilled, available CA Service Virtualization engineers is very small.

HP has it's own approach to test virtualization which we evaluated at the same time we evaluated CA Service Virtualization, but we found it to be behind in it's capability compared to CA Service Virtualization.

Work closely with a CA partner in their Service Virtualization channel to get your in house resources ramped up on CA Service Virtualization. Expect this to take time and require investment in professional services, training and mentoring.

Web service virtualization solution: It’s cost effective over a period of time and provides flexibility in product validation in the SOA space.

Specifically, service virtualization has reduced infrastructure costs by close to 40%. It helps in early problem detection and early fix, leading to early product release.

It would be great to have improved logging for trace requests and responses at the virtualized service level. The existing feature needs improving.

I have used this solution for nearly four years.

I have noticed performance issues such as the virtual server requires a restart after using it for a certain amount of time, to make sure it responds better.

Technical support is 8/10.

I had only used SoapUI before. LISA has better built-in capabilities that reduce the need for scripting/coding. Also, modeling is appealing and easily understandable.

Initial setup for service testing was easy, but setup of virtualization server was bit complex and needed help from an expert.

We built it in house. It was bit complex in the beginning but we gradually understood the setup better and are comfortable with it now.

My personal feeling is that the licensing cost keeps smaller organisations away due to affordability, but bigger organisations can afford it easily. However, an important point is that over time, there is a good ROI, given that tool is integrated well for virtualization of provider systems.

My personal opinion is that the tool is really good as a service virtualization solution rather than a service testing tool.

The ability for us to be able to record the live transactions, and create a virtual services out of that, as well as be able to actually use the request and response to create new virtual services for the back-ends that we don't have access to. We have a bunch of use cases there from that perspective.

With the radio's hardware costs allow the development team to what they call shift left, and start to develop their code against the other back-end services that we may not have available in time. These are pretty much the benefits there that we see.

I would like to see more integration support with Docker for release automation, a few things on service monitoring that's pretty much provided in the prior version of the product. I would like to see that a little bit more usable in the future.

It's really good. We use it to support performance testing as well. That can scale up to tens of thousands of users concurrently.

It's great. Basically, it's designed so that we have a load balancing virtual service environment, so we can scale it up as much as we need to.

That's pretty much the key thing I like about CA compared to other vendors I work with. Their support is great. We have an account manager that's really helpful. He helps us kind of navigate through a different escalation path as well after we open the ticket. We never felt like we were left hanging when we run into any issues with the product.

I think it's a little more technically involved to get it started, but once you get the hang of it you can pretty much do even internal knowledge transfer to any other team. We rely on CA-provided training to a really small group of our team, and then after that we first do our internal training and knowledge transfer to other teams to scale it up.

We quantify what kind of benefits that we have against the cost that we have to pay on the solution. It turns out to be a really good exercise there. It forces us to do the ROI on the technology product that we buy against the benefits that we reap from the product there.

I would rate it an 8/10. From a capabilities perspective it's there. Like I mentioned, the learning curve can be a little high. Usability in the prior version that we used, version 8.2, usability is not great. That's why I give it an eight. It requires a Thick Client, so we need to install that on the machine. It's not the most intuitive UI ever, so we'd like to see it improved a little bit from that perspective. I know that they're coming out with version 9, which is supposed to improve that quite a lot, so I'll be looking forward to that.

What we start off with is that we had what we called a enter of excellence that comprised of a few very technical individual to try out the platform, to install the software, and be the product expert within the organization. Then what we did is that we pretty much scaled the development of the virtual services to other teams and that have more of a knowledge of how the service is supposed to behave, so that the COE doesn't need to be in all of these type of sessions and what not. We actually used the start out small and then use that team to empower other teams to actually be able to develop their virtual services that way.

• We mainly use it for performance testing.
• Being able to spin up virtual services without buying additional hardware and being able to test.
• Ability to shift left or simplify the SDLC process.

The benefits are cost savings on hardware and earlier defect identification. We have a bunch of metrics we just presented on this.

Currently we are in the early cycle. It meets our current needs. I see where there are things we potentially may need, but nothing in the near future.

Good. We haven't had any issues. This is beneficial because we had CA resources on site so they have been able to help us and the product dev team to be able to solve issues quickly.

Good. It was part of our POC in which we made sure it would scale to fit our environment. It was our criteria in why we chose CA over other vendors.

We really haven’t done a lot of that because we have CA resources on site who was able to handle the majority of them. The CA Resource on site has done everything and anything and solved problems quickly. We honestly haven’t run into many problems. Not much to answer.

We've looked at Service Virtualization for the last few years because we knew the benefits of it but for which we never had the financial backing to purchase a tool. We've known that we've needed it for a long time just because of the benefits and abilities to transform the IT organization. It took a big change in our IT organization to buy it.

We considered HP SV, IBM GreenHat or whatever it is called now, Parasoft, and another smaller one.

It was straightforward from CA's setup, but it was probably somewhere in between in terms of our internal process.

We set up on a Linux server which was complex due to internal security in our company that pose a challenge. Not a tool specific problem, but an internal process security issue.

We considered HP Service Virtualization, IBM Green Hat or whatever it is called now, Parasoft, and another smaller one.

We were looking for a tool that met the needs of what we're trying to do. We have specific criteria. Most tools can do the basic web services, message queues, etc. What set CA apart was the ability to do the Java Virtualization.

Do your homework, do what’s right for your organization. While the tools try to be one size fits all. They each do something better than the other and you have to pick one that fits your IT organization.