No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs ReadyAPI Test 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)
ReadyAPI Test
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (20th), Regression Testing Tools (11th), API Testing Tools (11th)
 

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 35.2% compared to last year.
ReadyAPI Test, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 2.2% mindshare, up 0.5% since last year.
Service Virtualization Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Broadcom Service Virtualization27.7%
Parasoft Virtualize26.0%
OpenText Service Virtualization15.9%
Other30.39999999999999%
Service Virtualization
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ReadyAPI Test2.2%
Tricentis Tosca10.1%
OpenText Functional Testing6.8%
Other80.9%
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…
Luis Sanchez - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Assurance Test Engineer at Dormakaba
Helps in data, regression, performance, security, and functional testing
ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This helps my team in virtualizing responses so we are not dependent on the systems when they are down."
"I would advise others who are looking for a similar solution to go for this product."
"Has lead to cost savings and helped improve the project life cycle."
"CA Service Virtualization is totally number one in the market, no one comes close to this."
"The features are really good in the middleware testing world; it supports lots of technologies and I would strongly recommend this tool for automation and virtualization."
"Unit testing or early life testing did not have to be stopped or delayed because those services were not available."
"The most valuable features are the recording and creating of virtual services."
"Specifically, service virtualization has reduced infrastructure costs by close to 40% and helps in early problem detection and early fix, leading to early product release."
"We are using SoapUI Pro as an API testing tool, and we do API building, testing, and tracking."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work, and you can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI."
"SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly."
"Great tool. Makes API testing super easy to set up and use."
"I think this is a very easy tool to use for automated tests to run in a CI environment."
"Overall, I think this solution is very cool and easy-to-use."
 

Cons

"Stability is getting better. When we first started with it, there were some bugs."
"The biggest area of improvement is in the licensing. The licensing costs are very high."
"UI should be more user friendly: better usability, more testing oriented."
"On the testing side of the functionality, there are a few things that are missing."
"They can always work on usability and making simple things simple to do."
"The concept of agent installation is a tedious process and should have been much simpler."
"Customer service in Italian is not very useful."
"I think the biggest improvement can come in usability. It's still very complex to use."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"The licenses could be more flexible with regards to floating licenses."
"There are a lot of bugs and it can sometimes be 'quirky."
"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."
"I find that I'm fighting with the opportunities to order requests."
"Sometimes it would get stuck, so we had to close ReadyAPI and then start it again."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"The UI should be improved a little."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a yearly licensing cost, and I would give it a four out of five."
"I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable."
"There are additional fees for advanced-level technical support."
"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."
"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
"It is free of charge."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."
"The cost is not that bad."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
894,668 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
 

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 Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise20
 

Also Known As

ITKO LISA, CA LISA, CA Service Virtualization
SoapUI NG 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, 
Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Tricentis, Parasoft and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: April 2026.
894,668 professionals have used our research since 2012.