Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

Supports lots of middleware technologies. Good virtualization tool.

They can improve their front end testing features.

6+ years

We once faced issues when we moved from 4.2 to 4.7 or 5. They completely changed the UI and their is very little support for backward compatibility.

No.

Excellent.

Good.

I like working with the CA Service Virtualization product, so I'll stick with it. Given a chance I would like to work on Parasoft and Green Hat as well.

I've been using CA Service Virtualization for the last 6 years, I am quite happy with the performance and how it developed over the years. Unlike other tools, the set up of CA Service Virtualization is quite easy and self-explanatory.

We implemented using a vendor team which was very talented.

Green Hat and Parasoft.

The features are really good in the middleware testing world. It supports lots of technologies. I would strongly recommend this tool for Automation and Virtualization. It's a good tool for QA developers.

Virtualization is very important for me so as to mitigate my dependency on real back-end system and push the QA testing life cycle earlier.

Especially in QA/Test/Pre prod environment because of rapid changes and non availability, CA LISA is helpful in replacing the back-end with stub responses which can be helpful in pushing the QA life cycle much earlier in the overall development cycle.

It's currently very sensitive to app changes/responses & the setup to capture the responses is a bit cumbersome .

3 years

Only some security issues with SSL/RSA.

Setting up the proxy to capture responses for the model.

We didn't encounter any issues with stability.

Right now we're only using it for pre-production so we haven't yet seen how it scales if we use it for production volumes.

Pretty Good.

Good

Ease of use and reliable solution.

It's a bit complex as far as creating the model and then improvising it. Also maintaining the model is cumbersome.

We implemented via a vendor team - their support was good and they had a high level of technical expertise.

ROI is NOT that great since the product license is expensive.

Pricing and Licensing is expensive.

Over the past 3 years which I've been using it, I've found it to be a good solution. Only drawback is price, setup & maintenance.

The most valuable feature is the ability to create systems. We use TIBCO for our integration; the ability to create those systems when they are not available to us is very effective.

It has helped our organization in term of its availability and being able to create systems immediately. This happens in cases when our developers are held up or when we have to spend a lot of time switching between development and testing; that can really slow us down. This causes problems sometimes when we forget to disconnect and reconnect.

I would like to see improvements in the naming conventions. The current naming conventions of CA Service Virtualization are hard to use.

 I haven't seen any problems with stability. It looks pretty stable.

In terms of scalability, we're just getting started so we're just going through examples. CA is on site and they are taking us through the process. We haven't really gotten into the scale end too much. We are just taking small chunks and proving the concept.

CA came in and installed it. It seemed like it was a straightforward installation as long as you know what you're doing. I couldn't just do it out-of-the-box, but it seemed like it was pretty straightforward.

We're getting into the lean and agile process and one of the problems we have is the testing and delivery time frame. We're looking to improve the overall quality of the product. The code helped the efficiency of our programmers in the overall process.

I suggest just getting in and start using it. That is the best case scenario for us, to actually start proving the concept.

When selecting a vendor, I would look at support, the functionality of the product, and how well it performs. I would suggest starting small, take it in small chunks, and just start using it.

DevTest supports multiple testing environments so you can configure it to use one testing environment or 20, and you can change it for use in any other environments with the flick of a button.

It takes a bunch of different technologies and you can use it all in one solution, so I can work with my databases, my REST service calls, different web services; and I can use it all in one place. We do a lot of integration testing, and that takes care of it all.

I think the one thing that we need that it doesn't do is performance testing for UI applications. So it integrates with Selenium, but we can't use it for performance testing.

We'd like to be able to do performance testing for in-house applications with more than five to 10 users, but we can't do that with the tool.

There's a couple of things with the UI that make it a little bit hard for new people to use. It's not intuitive in some places. You have to know what you're doing. It's not something that somebody could pick up and just start using the same day without somebody explaining it a little bit.

It's been very stable. We haven't had any issues with it.

We're not using it. We are using it in a QA group, and so it's a pretty small adoption right now. We're trying to increase that.

Initial setup was pretty straightforward.

There was another one called Green Hat by IBM. We were looking at that. DevTest seemed to be a lot easier to use. Also, it worked with TIBCO and with other technologies that we were using.

Definitely read the documentation. The documentation is pretty good.

On the testing side of the functionality, there are a few things that are missing. For instance, a comparative report. But since it's open source, we can add the extension and we do this by ourselves.

It is quite stable.

I would rate the tech support a nine out of ten. They need more knowledge about the connectivity to DevOps orchestration.

I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable.

I like the fact that it allows us to focus on just the system under test. We can remove of all the dependent requirements from the system.

It allows us to implement an Agile Shift Left development paradigm so that we can start testing things before all the pieces of are completed.

I think the biggest improvement can come in usability. It's still very complex to use. Also, we've found a fair number of bugs, but CA always resolves them.

I would say it's been mostly stable. We did have a problem related to a service one of our teams was running that was not working properly. But, we don’t yet know what the root cause was.

It's scaled to meet all of our needs so far.

Technical support has been good. They're responsive to our requests.

All our teams were using their own solutions. We wanted something more universal.

Initial setup was straight forward. It was an easy install.

We also looked at Parasoft, but we thought that CA met our vendor requirements more closely.

When choosing a vendor, the most important criteria is whether we can have a long-term partnership with them. Obviously, cost is also an important factor, as well as software reliability. We also look at the future road map for the product.

It's important to have a group that really learns and understands service virtualization well. You can then leverage them for any teams that want to implement SV.

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 is good.

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