Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

I think the most valuable feature is the ability to quickly create simulations of APIs that you use to disconnect you from your dependencies as part of your testing process.

We've really done two different scenarios. One is the creation of a new API. We were able to create a simulation before we ever wrote a line of code, and so all of our customers who would use that gave us direct feedback very quickly. In a performance environment, we have lots of dependencies, lots of services that we talk to. Having the simulations gave us the ability to run test when we want rather than when they're available.

The things that we're interested mostly are deployment kinds of capability. We would like to deploy these simulators as part of our continuous deployment process. We would like to be able to auto-deploy them as part of the test mechanism to help test teams without having to set up the infrastructure in advance.

6 months.

We've had no issues with the stability of the solution, had no problems at all in the six months we've had it deployed.

One of the requirements that we had early on was the ability to handle high transaction rates. Our target was 700 transactions a second. We were just able to prove with our mix of services over 750 so very, very comfortable.

This is one development group. We have lots of different groups that are standing at the doorway to get in. It's a very exciting time.

We didn't use technical support during the evaluation. We've used it a lot since, mostly to try and fix things that we didn't quite understand properly, not bug fixes.

Listening to our executives, one of the key difficulties that the development teams were having is the ability to test faster, so they can't deliver content faster to our customers because they can't test fast enough mostly because of these dependencies and the outside suppliers. Having a service virtualization solution gives us the ability to disconnect ourselves from our suppliers and those blocking dependencies, allows us to go faster.

We're not really KPI-driven. It's really can we allow the team to test without the dependencies where they weren't able to do that before?

One of the reasons we picked the product was it was easy to set up. We signed our contract at the end of May, and we had our production instance up and running in the second week of June, so it was very easy to set up and it's been running solid since.

We really disconnected ourselves from the IT department. They run the infrastructure. It's then very stable and performant. Most of the administration is done by the engineering team itself, product engineering.

This solution is very valuable in terms of being able to speed up. One of the primary capabilities was the ability to consume it by our teams. How hard is it to learn? How hard is it to set up? Of the three vendors in the evaluation, the CA Service Virtualization was the easiest license model and the easiest to stand up and configure.

I've never really given anybody a 10 so I give them a 9. It's done everything it said it would do. We've got great consumption, early acquisition of the product. Support has been fantastic as we hope it would. The user interface is easy to learn. All of the things we set out as objectives have been met in the primary deployment.

CA Service Virtualization is an amazing solution, very easy to use, easy to train others on how to take advantage of it. I'd say jump on it.

Virtualizing different protocols, data driving the request and response values, window to script if anything additional is needed from the virtual service.

Setting up a virtual service is very quick and hence is very easy to continue testing without waiting much.

The tool is growing with every release. I don't have any real concerns. Also, the development team usually prioritizes requests once they are raised with them.

2 years

No Major deployment issues.

No issues in terms of stability.

No issues with scalability of service.

9 out of 10. They are very quick in responding back with any queries.

9 out of 10. They are very quick in responding back with any technical issues or queries.

Yes, I have used similar solutions from two other vendors but love the UI, and ease of use of CA Service Virtualization.

If it's your first time using it you will face difficulties but afterwords everything is just few clicks away.

• Service Virtualization
• Web Service/MQ/Database Testing
• Selenium Integration
• Junit Integration
• ALM + Dev Test
• and a long list of other features.

We have saved a lot of money and testing time by using CA SV. We started with Web Services and we've now covered all Mainframe, DB, MQ.

4 years

No issues with deployment.

When starting we had issue like LISA getting stuck while we were reading csv files doing performance testing.

No issues with scalability.

9/10. And we love the community.

9/10

I've worked on RIT also. It's not that easy to use and lots of things are missing. But CA SV makes it so easy. It's three steps to create the virtual service and deploy.

Initial setup was straightforward. Read the agreement and close your eyes, next... next...

In-house

I'm looking forward to testing Devtest 8.0.2 and the new ideas. I've been impressed so far.

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.

The most important thing is that we can integrate it into our existing test automation and CI tool, which is Jenkins at the moment. Our plan is to elaborate the deployment process for continuous deployment – the integration of the testing tools is very important to us. We have real backends and there are already issues with availability and stability, so we use simulations to mock up the production environment.

There is a range of different kinds of simulations that we can create – capture/replay up to creation of real, elaborate simulations of the back end.

The UI is a pain point. If they had a better UI, it would have a much higher rating.

Integration of RAML files so that you can generate simulations directly from the specifications would be another improvement. For example, some guidance within the tool – if we could customize Service Virtualization, to disable functions we do not need. There are a bunch of functionalities which are part of the solution and we have to go through a number of cascading menus to find what we need. In other words, to simplify the front end.

We don’t, for example, use SAP or Oracle databases that we need to attach, and, therefore, it would be nice to disable these un-needed functions, to reduce the complexity of the GUI. Another point is that if something fails during the testing process, there is a lot of logged information that is useful because the error messages are Service Virtualization specific. It would be helpful to get more meaningful error messages. For example, a malformed JSON file, the error that is returned which is some internal error, but it’s not clear, for example, that it might be a syntax error.

It’s great. The only problem we have is that the UI is not good. The tool is fully implemented in Java, and you can’t move readouts between screens. We can live with it, but we need a really huge screen. And we can’t work with a laptop.

This is one of the reasons we try to get rid of the UI and, instead, to generate templates by script so we don’t have to use the UI. We switched from using the UI to automatic template generation, which is a kind of model-driven testing.

It is very good. The response times are really short. We have a partner, IPT, a CA partner, whom we have engaged for support. So if we have some issues they call CA support, and the response times are really, really quick.

It was already in production when I joined.

If you want to implement something at the enterprise level, then this is an appropriate tool, not something that is open-source or free. Think about how it integrates with other solutions and the product’s reliability. Also, you’ll need professional support for such a solution.

We have a lot of different tasks to perform. We use and value all of the features CA Service Virtualization has to offer.

We've always had problems with test environments. A lot of time was spent on preparing that level and we found a lot of problems with the environments. This ultimately, created a lot of contraints. When we started using Service Virtualization we were able to deploy the application on our test environment without any dependencies or constraints.

Sometimes we are faced with some problems, but CA Service Virtualization is a really felxible tool. When we encounter some problems or issues we just use our own method around it and move forward.

We've used this solution for about 2 years.

We did not encounter any issues with deployment. CA Service Virtualization has a lot of instructions and documentation about deployment.

The solution required a lot of CPU memory, but using enough PC OZU fixed the problems.

We didn't have any issues with scalabilty, but CA has a perfect community where all of their users can find the information needed.

We didn't have the need for technical support. Our team fixed the problems on their own.

We used a lot of other solutions, but switched to CA Service Virtualization because this one tool can cover all of our requirements.

The setup was straightforward as a result of having good documentation and a great community to reach out to for help.

Our team is certified by CA Service Virtualization.

Service visualization for almost all types of protocols. Version 7.5.1 has many improved features compared to version 6.5 which we were previously using.

Has lead to cost savings and helped improve the project life cycle. Teams are more streamlined and helpful not only for testers but even for developers.

It's not really meant for Services Testing and reporting functionality from the CA SV console - it's a very basic one. I'd like to see improvements in these two areas.

6 Months

I have not experienced any deployment issues. The deployment process is really simple and straight forward. It certainly has improved in the latest version.

Not really, sometimes we face minor issues with the registry server but that is more of an environment issue. Other than that 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.

I'm very satisfied with the tool CA has produced and the level of support they provide. I'm only a bit disappointed with the knowledge repository.

8 out of 10. Most of the issues I raised with CA support were addressed within 24 hours. Also, CA actively follows up on the open issues - I've found this to be very good.

I used SOAP UI briefly. I switched to CA SV as it has more advanced features, supports almost all types of services and moreover has better support.

I'm not aware of any issues we faced during the implementation. We have a separate environments team which did the setup for us.

We implemented through an in-house team working with the parent company. However, our environment support team actively monitors all the servers.

It really depends on various factors like the type of project and timeline of the project. Definitely ROI is a lot better then earlier projects when we didn't use virtual services.

Initial setup was done by the parent company and we are just using licenses and servers provided by the parent company.

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

Very easy to learn and implement. Doesn't require extensive technical knowledge. Use virtual services instead of stubbed data.

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.