No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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...
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st)
OpenText Functional Testing
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. Broadcom Service Virtualization is designed for Service Virtualization and holds a mindshare of 25.7%, down 26.3% compared to last year.
OpenText Functional Testing, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 8.7% mindshare, up 8.3% since last year.
Service Virtualization Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Broadcom Service Virtualization25.7%
Parasoft Virtualize22.8%
OpenText Service Virtualization17.2%
Other34.3%
Service Virtualization
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
Tricentis Tosca9.2%
SmartBear TestComplete4.4%
Other77.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

DM
Senior Project Manager at Infosys
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…
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I think it definitely helps us reduce time to market, and in terms of dollar savings it helps us quite a bit."
"The other thing is, it's got probably the greatest amount of features, in terms of different technologies that you can automate and virtualize, out of any of the solutions out there."
"LISA VSE and Test Cases."
"We use CA Service Virtualization to stub out various downstream systems, it helps to reduce the environment contention with other downstream testing teams."
"Service virtualization is the most valuable feature to me; it helped us to start the performance testing activities much earlier in the testing life cycle."
"Some of the virtual services that have been built by this solution will support somewhere around 2000 to 3000GPS perfectly."
"Our supply chain applications became available for more than 70% of the time compared to 25% before we started using LISA."
"I think, wow, we can do a lot of stuff, save a lot of time, and save a lot of money."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The solution’s AI capabilities cut down test creation time for mobile by at least 60 percent."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The return on investment for any company buying this product license is 100 percent, as businesses with clients increase productivity when manual tasks becomes faster and efficient by automating them with this tool."
 

Cons

"CA actually releases a new version every year. We had issues with the upgrade prior to the latest one."
"We need to get more and more types of services because this is a multidisciplinary platform."
"The automated generation of tests could be improved. Right now, we have to generate them all ourselves."
"The solution required a lot of CPU memory, but using enough PC OZU fixed the problems."
"It is difficult and requires a lot of manual effort to debug/troubleshoot any virtual service."
"A more stable client-side application would be a big thing – their server side application is pretty solid."
"They can always work on usability and making simple things simple to do. This is true of every product that deals with complexity."
"Parsers, look and feel need improvement."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
"The scalability is good, although it’s not without its problems."
"It's hard to install the license seat because the web-based GUI is not user friendly."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten."
"This tool is good for programming experts."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is a yearly licensing cost, and I would give it a four out of five."
"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."
"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."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
25%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
 

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 Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

ITKO LISA, CA LISA, CA Service Virtualization
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

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, 
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Tricentis, Parasoft and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.