We performed a comparison between Broadcom Service Virtualization and ReadyAPI Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, OpenText, SmartBear and others in Service Virtualization."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."
"The most valuable features are the recording and creating of virtual services."
"We are able to quickly scale our requests. We have tested across thousands of requests. We have had no problems so far."
"You can create virtual services from a live recording or convert raw traffic into request/response pairs."
"Scalability has actually worked well and we are able to bring it to multiple environments."
"The ability to create virtual services and deploy them as Docker containers, and include them in our Jenkins build pipelines, is a valuable feature."
"Unit testing or early life testing did not have to be stopped or delayed because those services were not available."
"Easy to understand ways of creating stubs."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"The solution has some good scanning features."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"The solution scales well."
"CA actually releases a new version every year. We had issues with the upgrade prior to the latest one."
"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."
"The workstation component has a very out-dated UI and is in dire need of a facelift."
"I would rate the tech support a nine out of ten. They need more knowledge about the connectivity to DevOps orchestration."
"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 is not a stable solution."
"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."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy. Now the tool is too heavy, they should work on fixing this issue because until your system has lots of resources, you won't be able to use it seamlessly. The performance of the application itself could improve."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."
More Broadcom Service Virtualization Pricing and Cost Advice →
Broadcom Service Virtualization is ranked 1st in Service Virtualization with 97 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. Broadcom Service Virtualization is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Broadcom Service Virtualization writes "Feature-rich, easy to configure and set up, and the support is good". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Broadcom Service Virtualization is most compared with Parasoft Virtualize, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server, OpenText Service Virtualization and Tricentis Tosca, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, ReadyAPI, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One and Apigee.
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.
