Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

The DevTest Workstation (JMS steps) and CA Service Virtualization are the most valuable features.

By using the DevTest tool, we have successfully automated the testing in the Dev and QM spaces. We have also carried out virtualization of a few systems and intend to apply it on a larger scale in future.

There is need to improve the DevTest Workstation with UI-based testing features.

I have used this solution for one year.

It was easy to deploy, as proper documentation and additional support was provided by CA.

The product has been stable and patches have been provided on a regular basis.

The product has scaled to our needs.

The customer service was excellent.

The technical support was excellent.

Previously, we were using Java-based, homegrown tools for our automation processes.

Initial setup was complex, as we were new to the tool and to reach the current scenario, a learning curve in terms of the tool was required.

A PoC was carried out with a CA Service Virtualization technical resource and he met our expectations.

Applying automation using the DevTest Workstation for automation of middleware validation, has decreased manual effort by 40%.

We looked at the HPE UFT software.

You should try to do a PoC and then go through different use cases in order to understand where exactly this tool is applicable in your enterprise.

• The description of the components that pop up when the mouse hovers over them

It helped in simulating the environment for testing for a very tedious project, which otherwise would have involved lot of manhours to test.

The REST test step could include other methods. The currently available ones are: PUT, POST, GET and DELETE. It would be great if the DELETE method could have the Content tab enabled so the request payload can be sent.

I have been using this product for 1.5 years.

We have not had stability issues.

We haven’t had much issues with scalability, but when I did once, the support team was very helpful in resolving the issue.

I rate technical support 4/5.

I have used LISA version 7.5, DevTest Solutions version 8.1 and am currently using DevTest 9.1. The tool always had some additional features included in each of its releases and it fixed the bugs of the previous release. That made migrating to the newer version more exciting.

Setup was straightforward. The instructions in the specification document were crisp and clear.

I did not evaluate other options.

It a great tool for simulating the service.

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 features are the web service harness and the service virtualization.

We have been able to enact a 'shift left' in our testing. In addition, I built an automated regression test pack for our teams. Thanks to CA Service Virtualization, we have new functionality (the ability to stub services we rely on) and we can test our own APIs in an efficient manner.

The GUI can be hard to navigate. The ITR keeps pulling the screen to the front. The speed can be improved as well.

We have been using this solution for close to two years.

We did not encounter any issues with stability.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

Technical support was provided from our work team. It was sufficient, but the response time was slow.

Initially, we used scripts, JCL, and CICS transactions. CA Service Virtualization has simplified and enhanced this process.

The setup was straightforward. The development of the harnesses was more challenging.

Before buying the license, make sure that you try the product and are happy that it can provide the service testing capabilities that you require. Have people in your team who can invest the time to gain skills in CA Service Virtualization.

Our team did evaluate other products, such as SoapUI and Topaz.

Make sure you understand the potential of the solution and that it will take time to make it work.

The ease with which we can create virtual services and view the flow in the model are valuable features of this product.

CA Service Virtualization has enabled us to give the client demos in a very effective manner even when the environment is not available. It has also enabled us to shift-left.

There should be an option to search a transaction that is VSI based through a transaction number. It would really be a great addition.

I have been using this tool for three and half years now.

Stability issues do arise if there is not enough system memory.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

The technical support is good. I would give it a 8/10 rating.

The initial setup was quite straightforward because the steps to install and configure were clear.

Pricing is a bit on the higher side. Owing to its high cost, proper business justification needs to be provided to the client, if this tool is to be proposed.

We evaluated another solution, SoapUI NG Pro.

I would recommend others to use CA Service Virtualization for all their virtualization needs as it is easy to use and the support provided via the CA Communities is also great.

The most valuable feature of CA Service Virtualization is that overall, it is a system-based product for virtualizing the services. There are many tools that offer RESTful calls. However, with this product, we have many other options such as database service virtualization, mainframe virtualization and other wide range of virtualization options.

There are a lot of benefits of this solution but I will give you the top benefit from my experience. Since I am from the testing team, I have to test a particular service and the service needs to be developed either by a third party or I am dependent on my development team to complete the service development, only then I can start my testing process. However, with CA Service Virtualization, what I can do is I can start my testing from Scrum 1. I can do this by grabbing details from the developer in my team or the third-party service and ask for sample request responses. Using these sample request responses, I can create a virtual service and then no longer am I dependent on any third party or a developer for my testing process.

The only thing is that I create the service, deploy the virtual service and then use it for my testing; it's that simple.Thus it saves a lot of my time and if I am using any third-party services, then it saves me money as well.

This is what I have spoken to the CA people as well, I would like them to include mainframe testing within this tool.

Right now, we can do service virtualization but there is no mainframe testing feature in this tool such as batch processing, etc.; it is the feature that I need.

It is pretty stable. The service is available 24/7.

It is pretty scalable.

They have some cool technical support. What happens is that when we are using the features of CA Service Virtualization, then if we are facing any issues, they have technical support for the same. Based on the complexity of the issue, they can tell us what can be fixed or they will give us a workaround for the same.

I was not involved in the initial setup of this solution.

For me, the number one criteria while selecting a vendor are the features of the product. The next factor involved is how other clients are making use of it because we cannot afford to spend time to find out new features or bugs in the tool. So, these are really important factors and I would like to make sure it fits our needs.

Creating a virtual service is a matter of ten minutes. It depends on the complexity of the service, like the mainframe virtualization such as CICS or database virtualization, where there are some agents involved that take a day or two. It is simple. The only thing is that the developer of the service should have some technical idea involved as to how the service works and finding the right URL. That is important.

A while ago, we were looking for a tool to do testing across the web services. During that time, we were doing some PoCs on SoapUI. We did a PoC with Lisa. The company name was ITKO. After going through several PoC sessions, we figured out that this would be beneficial because the functional testing, which we would be creating for those web services, could be leveraged for performance testing as well.

We have a conceptual testing document where we say, you run a single user-firing transaction against three simulators and you host your test there. Over a period of time, we matured from using web services to using all the web-based UI applications. The best part about it is that it goes one layer below the UI. It’s not dependent on the UI. It’s dependent on the transactions going back and forth between the application server and one layer below your browser.

Usually, with tools like Selenium, you just click. In this case, you post a transaction and test how far it goes.

We use it as a kind of defect-finding tool when it comes to regression testing and automation testing. You can’t use the tests against pages that have JavaScript calls being made from them. So CA wrote a Chrome plug-in for us, which, once installed, captures the transactions we aren’t able to see, like Fiddler. So, we have set up standards across those. At this point in time, other than the applications where we are having challenges, even with the additional plug-in, we are using CA Service Virtualization for testing.

At the point of next release, we would really like to see the issues being resolved which we are facing right now with dynamic applications. Now, most of the applications in the market, in the industry, and most of the companies are rolling out responsive apps. If you can get rid of that plugin interface, you can get straight into the application itself, that would really work for us.

Initially, there were challenges. It has a heavy client. The rendering of the application itself and the usage of certain features was unclear and we had to ask them how to use them. Improvements to the documentation were made over a period of time. So, right now, other than the fact that it doesn’t work for a few applications, it’s pretty much stable right now. It is maturing. Pretty much it's stable enough right now where we don't have to worry about stability.

In terms of individual usage, it is a one-user, one-license model. On the performance side of the usage, it is pretty much decent enough where we are able to put in low levels of total users and again with the feature of authorizing IPs.

Technically, you can scale it up to a point where you have your IP stability. So, scalability-wise, from the performance aspect of it, we never have any complaints on that. We just needed to have the infrastructure to support it.

We used to use technical support quite often. It has lowered down because the fact that we now have in-house expertise. So, we are working as mentors for people on the usage part of it.

Of course, when it comes to tool usage and if something breaks on the tool side, we have our in-house team take a look at it first. They are the software engineering group. Then, if nothing happens on that side, we go back to customer service and say, “hey technical guys.” We contact the technical support.

We were using TestPartner, which is a UI-based application for capturing and creating regression test cases for regression test automation. It was VB based and at the same time you couldn't scale it up. You could only leverage the same functional test for performance. So, the advantage we have with CA Service Virtualization is that whenever you create any function regression, we can use it, as is, for performance testing. We host it out there on the simulator, saying that, now, instead of running one user, run 500 users. Good to go.

But, your PC needed to be on when TestPartner ran. You could not lock your machine because it was all keyboard and mouse driven. We didn't want that.

Initial setup was understandable. It wasn't that complex. The complexity was setting up the infrastructure. That was one of the challenging things where we had to acquire a few machines so we could set up the coordinators and simulators. We wanted beefier machines so we could get very similar production load. But, other than that, getting it on the users machine is a straightforward process.

We were looking at performance testing tools. We had HPE LoadPunner before. We looked at it, but that was a while ago. But, with the benefits of service installation that Lisa provided, along with a performance background with the infrastructure for supporting performance testing as well, at that point in time, it was a one-tool-fits-all application for us.

This is for those who are looking for tools where they would really like to leverage the service installation piece. One tool doing service installation. One tool carrying out performance testing. One tool carrying out functional testing. And if they want to not write performance testing specifically and instead leverage the functional test, I think this would be a tool to be considered.

Service virtualization is the most valuable feature for us because there are fewer constraints through the SDLC cycle. It really helped us to remove bottlenecks and expedite the test time.

It helps with parallel testing. With all the development happening, the sub-systems are not available completely. By virtualizing those systems and services, we are able to deliver our product quickly.

The one main thing we want to see is more on the reporting side. That's the one thing that we're missing. We need more detailed reporting. In particular with some of the integration, we want to see more detailed reports so that we can drill down to more scenarios.

So far, with the last few projects, it is quite stable.

The scalability is good. We are still new with it, but in terms of scalability, it is working right as it's supposed to.

We have used technical support. There were really good. I would give them a 10/10 rating as they really helped us be our best.

We got introduced to the CA sales people via our other company. The vendor came in to introduce the product. After looking at it, we found that it fit to our needs. We were struggling with a lot of gaps in our SDLC and so we decided to do a PoC, and it worked out.

For us, the most important factor while selecting a vendor was the continued customer support. CA was able to give us the professional environment and continued support.

I was a part of the setup. However, I have the other group who carried out the process. It was quite straightforward because I was with them at the time.

We did not look at other vendors. CA happened to be the first one.

We are using this program, so I would try to use it the same way, This is not to advertise, but educate others. If you see any constraint in your testing or deployment, this solution can really help you in moving forward