Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

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 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.

It's the ability to capture and replay traffic that's most valuable to us. We can monitor network traffic while getting data, and a virtual endpoint lets us see what the platform would respond with. We use it to isolate our app from unreliable pieces of the ecosystem, protecting our code from uncertainty.

Isolating the application that we’re testing is the top benefit. Also, it adds the ability to generate predefined responses to data so that we have a complete understanding as to how we’d perform.

So far nothing, it has everything I've needed. Totally everything.

However, it's a pretty heavyweight tool for my personal needs. I like to do stuff on my own and would normally prefer to use my own solution for service virtualization, rather than such a heavyweight, extensive product. In half an afternoon, I could make a few scripts to meet all the needs myself.

I haven't used it for long. We went through training, and have been planning how to use it as our app is still being developed. Training usage was two months.

It seems to be scalable, but we don’t know to what extent. For my testing needs, the solution has been fine, but I’m not sure from an enterprise perspective. I’ve been at Nike for two years and used to be just a Java developer.

I've not had to use them.

We used Charles Proxy and it required much more manual work. This product is much more automatic.

This is what I'm primarily doing. It's been straightforward with no issues.

It was a corporate decision to change. They looked for a solution that most accurately solved the need at hand efficiently. The most direct applicable solution to my needs is the important thing.

Jump in and play around with it, and you'll get it easily.

Virtualization.

I have used CA LISA in two organizations. In the first one, we were leveraging the virtualization capabilities to fill gaps with the middleware software for an ESB application. This enable the test teams to start earlier before the hardware and applications were fully ready for test.

The product is very robust and is obviously one of the front runners in the service virtualization space. Competitors have more user friendly user interfaces and some have front end systems which are easy to toggle and manipulate.

I have said many times that CA LISA is more of a technical programmer's tool, whereas their competitors are appealing both to the programmers as well as the basic user/business user/tester.

I've used it for three years.

No issues experienced.

No issues encountered.

No, as compared to competitors, studies have shown that CA seems more scalable, although for the average consumer of the products, they are all head-to-head.

While I have heard stories of varied levels of good and bad customer service from various clients, I have only experienced great support from CA.

8/10.

I have used both CA LISA as well as one of their competitors. When the competitor was chosen, it was due to overall capabilities and needs of the client, the cost, and the long term capabilities.

Their competitor offered an enterprise solution, whereas CA's costs was user-license based, and since the client wasn't sure of how many users we would scale to within a year, it was a better choice to go with the competitor.

The initial setup was easy and occurred within 1 full day, including configuration and full setup.

This was done with CA professional services and onsite training. CA provides very good support for their product, and was extremely helpful in both of the organizations where I installed the product.

When you look at pricing, it is important to understand what you specifically need. The CA LISA/Virtualization product has various types of licenses. If you go with the super user license, you get all of the access, but you have to ask yourself if you really need all of the capabilities. And even if you do, you likely only need one or two licenses. The rest can have the standard user license.

Reviewed options with Parasoft Virtualize and HP's virtualization tools.

LISA VSE and Test Cases.

Hybrid/Dynamic Representational Visualization Service.

UI Testing and Reporting Features.

5+ Years

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.

When we previously used CA SV we saw tremendous results, and went live with almost a 0% defect rate.

We use it for Service Visualization and to run tests to validate our services response with the database.

With CA SV it took 2.10 minutes as opposed to 210 minutes for a total validation per scenario. This reduced the development cycle time and provided a product with no defects from a QA perspective.

Performance and cost.

I used it a year ago and recently started using it again.

CA SV takes up lot of your system resources.

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.