"In the case of the virtualization of TCP/IP protocols for third-party terminal insurance, there was a device terminal, which was interacting with the application via the TCP/IP protocol. Most of the tools don't support that, but we were able to achieve it using Broadcom Service Virtualization."
"The most valuable features are the recording and creating of virtual services."
"There are several areas that are easily configurable."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"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."
"It is not a stable solution."
"I would like to have more flexibility towards the mainframe virtualization and also in JDBC virtualization."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"Technical support could be improved."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
More Broadcom Service Virtualization Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Service Virtualization is ranked 1st in Service Virtualization with 3 reviews while Micro Focus UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 17 reviews. Broadcom Service Virtualization is rated 8.0, while Micro Focus UFT One is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Broadcom Service Virtualization writes "Scalable with good recording and creating of virtual services, but it's not stable and there is no support for previous versions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT One writes "Testers have been able to free up their time: instead of doing mundane, repetitive tasks, they shift them off to automation". Broadcom Service Virtualization is most compared with Micro Focus Service Virtualization, Parasoft Service Virtualization, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server, Tricentis Tosca and SoapUI Pro, whereas Micro Focus UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT Developer, Selenium HQ, SmartBear TestComplete and Katalon Studio.
We monitor all Service Virtualization reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
