We performed a comparison between Broadcom Service Virtualization and IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, OpenText, SmartBear and others in Service Virtualization."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."
"It is easy to use, has a faster time to market, and provides flexibility."
"Easy to understand ways of creating stubs."
"We have had developers produce code later than we wanted to, but we've had some other stuff that was dependent on that. So what we were able to do was virtualize these assets and then go forward with our developer and not have to wait for these additional services to be available."
"The ability to create virtual services and deploy them as Docker containers, and include them in our Jenkins build pipelines, is a valuable feature."
"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."
"Unit testing or early life testing did not have to be stopped or delayed because those services were not available."
"CA Service Virtualization has helped us advance the development cycle when third-party interfaces are not available to us."
"It has very easy and good validation techniques used for SWIFT, XSD, and WSDL validations."
"As we have used most of the MQ stub, "MQ recording" is the most useful feature."
"UI should be more user friendly: better usability, more testing oriented."
"It is not a stable solution."
"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."
"One major feature I would like to see is on the user administration part. Right now, anybody can access any of the folders and any of the projects."
"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."
"Needs some additional lightweight, portable elements."
"From a reporting perspective I think we would like to have a more user-friendly approach."
"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."
"Reporting: In the recent release of RCPT, the "Usage graph" feature is included, but that still needs improvements in terms of UI and timeline filtering criteria."
"User friendliness: I would rate it somewhere around 5/10 in terms of user-friendliness. It can be simpler to build stubs and middle-ware based test cases compared to the solution given by RTVS."
More Broadcom Service Virtualization Pricing and Cost Advice →
More IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Broadcom Service Virtualization is ranked 1st in Service Virtualization with 97 reviews while IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server is ranked 5th in Service Virtualization. Broadcom Service Virtualization is rated 8.2, while IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server 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 IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server writes "I would recommend it due to the robust infrastructure implementation and good technical support supporting standards". Broadcom Service Virtualization is most compared with ReadyAPI Test, Parasoft Virtualize, OpenText Service Virtualization and Tricentis Tosca, whereas IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server is most compared with .
See our list of best Service Virtualization vendors.
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.
See this link, there is no direct comparison between the two - www.itko.com
I believe a Parasoft comparison, SV comparison can be found here -
www.itcentralstation.com
or
www.itcentralstation.com
Hi Yifat
CA seems the market leader in service virtualization. CA is a niche player in this space while IBM's Greenhat is one of their products in their plethora of products. Having said that, CA Lisa's strength lies in Test Data management and virtualization of any type including and not limited to Java, MQ or any other webservices.
I can comment that IBM is a let arrival to this space and also joins the ranks of application service virtualization vi acquisition.
Consider IBM and CA's track record when it comes to acquiring companies, their technologies and integrating them into their portfolios.
IBM Greenhat
I unfortunately have not used the IBM software. I do have experience with CA LISA and some with Parasoft but I don't know the IBM product well enough to vote.
However there is a company called Voke that does studies and comparisons of them. You could do a google search for Voke and Lisa and IBm and service virtualizaton and likely find that study on white paper. I will check as well.
Hi,
I am looking for similar information as well. If you have any content, please could you let me know where to find it please?
Thanks very much
Regards
Anish