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

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs OpenText Service Virtualization 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...
Ranking in Service Virtualization
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Service Virtualiza...
Ranking in Service Virtualization
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Service Virtualization category, the mindshare of Broadcom Service Virtualization is 32.0%, down from 34.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Service Virtualization is 15.9%, down from 17.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Service Virtualization
 

Q&A Highlights

it_user142806 - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 06, 2014
 

Featured Reviews

DM
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…
Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Is scalable and easy to use, but the monitoring feature needs improvement
The support for Micro Focus Service Virtualization is better than that for other products. The technical support staff are highly skilled. Sometimes, we don't have to open a ticket. We can just go into the community and then talk to them directly. I would rate technical support at seven out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We have been using it extensively for the shift left process and testing. It helps us to accelerate and virtualize services and assets that we don't have. It enables to test faster."
"Ability to vary the responses very easily (randomize, pick-lists, etc.)."
"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."
"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."
"I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable."
"There are several areas that are easily configurable."
"You can create virtual services from a live recording or convert raw traffic into request/response pairs."
"You can have a lot of different people with different technologies use the tool, without any programming experience at all, all the way up to people who can program. And then, the more technical that you are, the more programming you have, the more you're able to customize the tool."
"It is easy to use. This is what I tell my customers. The coding is easier to develop as well."
"The support for integration patterns and the ease of use to wizard-based utility is what I would consider the most important features for service virtualization platforms."
"The most valuable feature is that it reduces the dependency so that the down time of the environment is not a major cost. That cost can be used for something else like the cloud."
"The most valuable feature is SAP virtualization."
"The feature which is most valuable in this solution is the ease of use. The product is very easy to use and very easy to implement."
 

Cons

"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."
"CA actually releases a new version every year. We had issues with the upgrade prior to the latest one."
"I really want to see more of the "express" kind of model, where you get a little bit for free. I'd love to be able to see you be able to edit and author tests without having to be connected to a licensed server. And then, if you want to go and execute tests, then you go and connect to the server... I think it would unblock people to be able to do a lot more work from home or from remote places, where they can't really connect to the server."
"They can always work on usability and making simple things simple to do. This is true of every product that deals with complexity."
"Needs some additional lightweight, portable elements."
"UI should be more user friendly: better usability, more testing oriented."
"It is not a stable solution."
"DevTest is pretty massive. It's hard to tell what different parts of it can be used to do different things. They should modulize it more."
"More support for different protocols. I would love to see more wizards rather than relying on some custom coding, which you can use C# as well as Visual Basic scripting. In the service virtualization platform, I would love to see more wizard features as well as the ability to connect to an external database, which by the way, we have put an enhancement request in for. I'd love to see that in the service virtualization platform."
"The current protocol needs to be updated to be much more flexible. The product needs more technical flexibility in implementation and customization."
"The monitoring feature is not impressive because they use Windows for so much monitoring. They set a lock on the window, and then we have to gather the information from the main monitoring feature in the Windows server. There is not enough capacity for problem solving performance issues."
"HPE products are good, but they never make a product for a specific use. They make a product for the enterprise because that is their vision. They like multi-generational business plans. That means that they don't deliver small bits and pieces, but rather, they deliver to the enterprise."
"The integration with other solutions, such as ALM and Jira, should be improved."
 

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."
"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."
"Micro Service Virtualization is very expensive. The pricing of this product is in line with all of the other big name-brand products."
"It's an expensive solution, but you can get discounts. You have to buy one server and one designer together, for example, and it may cost 15 million Thai Baht."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

it_user142806 - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 6, 2014
Nov 6, 2014
Check out the comparison of CA Lisa and HP Service Virtualization at http://www.itcentralstation.com/products/comparisons/hp-service-virtualization_vs_ca-lisa
2 out of 6 answers
it_user137409 - PeerSpot reviewer
Jul 30, 2014
Hello, Unfortunately, I don’t have experience in CA Lisa SV. However, I have evaluated HP SV and have an opinion about it – I can share my thoughts if you need, but I don’t think that it will help you to answer the question. “What needs to be considered when comparing them?” Of course a lot is depends on your necessities, but for the most of cases it doesn’t matter what tools you are going to compare – I believe that all the needs are the same because of the domain area (SV in this case). - Number of Protocols supported - Record and Reproduce possibility - Create virtual services from scratch - Easiness of installing, configuring and using - Extended possibilities for creation more complex virtual endpoints (db support, data stores, team using, etc.) - Other deeper criteria Thank you. Best Regards, Dzianis Sushko EPAM Integration Competency Center
it_user105102 - PeerSpot reviewer
Jul 30, 2014
HP Service Test and CA Lisa are not comparable products. HP Service Test is comparable to Soap UI- create scripts/tests that drive data to a web service. HP Service Test is one of three products in the HP Unified Functional Testing Suite: what used to be Quick Test Professional, Service Test and Service Test Manager.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
31%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
33%
Retailer
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Also Known As

ITKO LISA, CA LISA, CA Service Virtualization
Micro Focus Service Virtualization, HPE Service Virtualization
 

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, 
Virgin Media, TTNet
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom Service Virtualization vs. OpenText Service Virtualization and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.