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

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs OpenText Service Virtualization vs Parasoft Virtualize 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:
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Service Virtualization category, the mindshare of Broadcom Service Virtualization is 28.8%, down from 36.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Service Virtualization is 13.2%, down from 15.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft Virtualize is 19.4%, down from 20.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Service Virtualization Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Broadcom Service Virtualization28.8%
OpenText Service Virtualization13.2%
Parasoft Virtualize19.4%
Other38.6%
Service Virtualization
 

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.
Ujjwal Gupta - PeerSpot reviewer
Captures and simulates live system behavior from recordings
Virtualizing a component or service which does not exist or is under development. - Broad, flexible support for literal, XML, JSON requests & responses - Broad, flexible support for Protocol (HTTP, HTTPS, JMS, MQ & for other traffic types such as SQL Queries), Transport & Message Formats (i.e. EDI messages) - Ability to create data driven responders - Recording traffic by acting as a proxy and replaying the recorded traffic for quick and easy virtual asset creation. - Virtualize fills the gap by providing access to their behavior by removing dependency of databases, mainframes, third-party systems, etc. - No Limitations on Traffic hits per day.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is definitely scalable."
"Helps us to remove barriers that we have with dependencies on services that we don't own, or services that don't even exist yet."
"Ability to vary the responses very easily (randomize, pick-lists, etc.)."
"The ability to create virtual services and deploy them as Docker containers, and include them in our Jenkins build pipelines, is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable features include the capability to use other program languages such as PLSQR, JAVA, .NET."
"The innovation is amazing. CA has continued to add to services that it supports, the transports that it supports, and has built all of the enterprise capabilities into the product as well."
"We are able to quickly scale our requests. We have tested across thousands of requests. We have had no problems so far."
"Scalability has actually worked well and we are able to bring it to multiple environments."
"The most valuable feature is SAP virtualization."
"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 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."
"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 initial setup is quite easy to manage."
 

Cons

"It is not a stable solution."
"We had to implement an external service catalog. We put it in ServiceNow. I would like to see an integrated service catalog."
"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."
"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."
"​From a reporting perspective I think we would like to have a more user-friendly approach."
"More examples of portal-based 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 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 integration with other solutions, such as ALM and Jira, should be improved."
"The current protocol needs to be updated to be much more flexible. The product needs more technical flexibility in implementation and customization."
"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 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."
"It would be ideal if the product offered more in terms of data virtualization or have a separate product that could be combined with this one that could offer a bit more in order to cover more of our requirements."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a yearly licensing cost, and I would give it a four out of five."
"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."
"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."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
30%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Performing Arts
10%
Financial Services Firm
28%
Retailer
12%
Insurance Company
6%
Transportation Company
6%
No data available
 

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 Business4
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise7
 

Also Known As

ITKO LISA, CA LISA, CA Service Virtualization
Micro Focus Service Virtualization, HPE Service Virtualization
Parasoft 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
Alaska Airlines, Cox Automotive, Comcast, Lufthansa, Samsung, WoodmenLife, Caesars Entertainment, Capital One, REI
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Broadcom, OpenText and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: October 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.