Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Broadcom Service Virtualiza...
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (4th), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Broadcom Service Virtualization is designed for Service Virtualization and holds a mindshare of 27.7%, down 35.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Functional Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 6.4% mindshare, down 10.1% since last year.
Service Virtualization Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Broadcom Service Virtualization27.7%
Parasoft Virtualize22.8%
OpenText Service Virtualization14.8%
Other34.7%
Service Virtualization
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.4%
Tricentis Tosca12.9%
BrowserStack7.5%
Other73.2%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

DM
Senior Project Manager at Infosys
Can be used for the virtualization of TCP/IP protocols for third-party terminal insurance
We use it for the virtualization of third-party APIs for performance testing. Our second use case is related to the virtualization of TCP/IP protocols for third-party terminal insurance, which is used for insurance clients In the case of the virtualization of TCP/IP protocols for third-party…
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"You can create virtual services from a live recording or convert raw traffic into request/response pairs."
"There are several areas that are easily configurable."
"The most valuable features include the capability to use other program languages such as PLSQR, JAVA, .NET."
"The ability to do parallel development and testing reduces our costs for duplicating environments, improving the productivity of our developers, and bringing products faster to market."
"I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable."
"We have had developers produce code later than we wanted to, but we've had some other stuff that was dependent on that. So what we were able to do was virtualize these assets and then go forward with our developer and not have to wait for these additional services to be available."
"We had a number of back-end services that were not available during testing times. What this had allowed us to do is get our early life testing done while those services are not available."
"The most valuable feature is that it supports so many protocols. We, being a large bank, have almost all the protocols, and it supports all of them, so that's one good thing."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
 

Cons

"UI should be more user friendly: better usability, more testing oriented."
"I would like to have more flexibility towards the mainframe virtualization and also in JDBC virtualization."
"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."
"More examples of portal-based virtualization."
"The workstation component has a very out-dated UI and is in dire need of a facelift."
"The cost is an area that needs improvement. There are a couple of other tools which provide support for performance testing with the base version itself, but Broadcom needs a separate component to support virtualization for performance testing. This is a costly component."
"I would rate the tech support a nine out of ten. They need more knowledge about the connectivity to DevOps orchestration."
"They can always work on usability and making simple things simple to do. This is true of every product that deals with complexity."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"The initial setup is complex."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a yearly licensing cost, and I would give it a four out of five."
"I don't have the exact dollar amount, but we have spent close to $1,000,000 for a three-year agreement, for an enterprise level."
"There are additional fees for advanced-level technical support."
"I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable."
"The price is reasonable."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The tool's price is high."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
881,928 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Marketing Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Performing Arts
8%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise98
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
 

Also Known As

ITKO LISA, CA LISA, CA Service Virtualization
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Union Bank, Swisscom, Autotrader, KPN, ING Bank, Best Buy, American Family Insurance, TESCO, Telefonica, Molina Healthcare, California DMV, Aktia, City Index, Con-way, DirecTV, GRU Airport, Liquidnet, NAB, Nordstrom, T-Mobile, TIM Brasil, 
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Tricentis, Parasoft and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: February 2026.
881,928 professionals have used our research since 2012.