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

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs OpenText Functional Testing 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

Service Virtualization Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Broadcom Service Virtualization28.6%
Parasoft Virtualize26.2%
OpenText Service Virtualization14.8%
Other30.400000000000006%
Service Virtualization
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing6.2%
Tricentis Tosca12.0%
BrowserStack6.8%
Other75.0%
Functional Testing Tools
Service Virtualization Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Parasoft Virtualize26.2%
Broadcom Service Virtualization28.6%
OpenText Service Virtualization14.8%
Other30.400000000000006%
Service Virtualization
 

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.
SP
Solutions Architect at InfoStretch
Easy to set up and scale but needs more data virtualization capabilities
I'm working with a service organization and I'm working for a client and that client requires this solution. That's why we use it. Basically, we are just a customer and end-user. The solution is easy to set up and a good tool for the service virtualization so far. I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If the product could do more things, I'd give it higher marks.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"There are many valuable features! Recording to build models, even from non-trivial sources."
"It's the ability to capture and replay traffic that's most valuable to us."
"This product helps some of our customers achieve agility and delivery effectiveness."
"In terms of improving the way the organization functions, it gives us lot of visibility into what features are getting released when."
"Ability to vary the responses very easily (randomize, pick-lists, etc.)."
"Some of the virtual services that have been built by this solution will support somewhere around 2000 to 3000GPS perfectly."
"I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable."
"LISA VSE and Test Cases."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"UFT provides Business Process Testing from within UFT, using the native UFT user interface."
"Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute, and now the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"It is a stable solution."
"Using Virtualize, this dependency has been removed completely, allowing the test team to provision many more orders in shorter time, enabling them to test much more, much faster."
"Easy testing environment creation. No need to have deep development/infrastructure knowledge."
"Parasoft Virtualization allowed us to create a simulated environment and test the code before entering the testing cycle."
"We now have the ability to test our complex applications completely detached from integration middleware, which improves the reliability, speed, cost, and simplicity of testing."
"The technical support is very good, with short lines and short response times from well-skilled technical employees."
"Parasoft Virtualize helped us in accelerating application delivery by allowing us to test early."
"We decided to use the Parasoft solution because it's more powerful and very easy to use."
"The solution is easy to set up and a good tool for the service virtualization so far."
 

Cons

"We had to implement an external service catalog. We put it in ServiceNow. I would like to see an integrated service catalog."
"The automated generation of tests could be improved. Right now, we have to generate them all ourselves."
"HPE ALM integration could be better, especially for exporting, importing, and reusing test cases written in an older version of CA Service Virtualization."
"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."
"The product is yet to become stable. Thus, people prefer using more stable solutions like JMeter and SoapUI."
"UI should be more user friendly: better usability, more testing oriented."
"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 does require a higher level of support. This is not the kind of tool that you can just haul off just go make decisions on."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"UFT still requires some coding."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"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."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"Performance enhancement for large payloads."
"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."
"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."
"It should have more fine-grained authorization."
"When Virtualize is running on a (virtual) machine with limited memory, over time it might consume more and more memory and (worst case) stall."
"This product is too expensive when scaling."
"It is somewhat complex regarding its configuration setup with different technologies."
"JMS Queue Monitoring: When deploying the TIBCO JMS monitor, we saw an approximately 50% failure rate in detecting the desired event."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"There is a yearly licensing cost, and I would give it a four out of five."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Marketing Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
7%
Retailer
5%
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 Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise71
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise7
 

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...
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 t...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

ITKO LISA, CA LISA, CA Service Virtualization
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
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, 
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Alaska Airlines, Cox Automotive, Comcast, Lufthansa, Samsung, WoodmenLife, Caesars Entertainment, Capital One, REI
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Tricentis, Parasoft and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: March 2026.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.