OpenText Service Virtualization vs Parasoft Virtualize comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Service Virtualiza...
Ranking in Service Virtualization
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Parasoft Virtualize
Ranking in Service Virtualization
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Market share comparison

As of June 2024, in the Service Virtualization category, the market share of OpenText Service Virtualization is 25.0% and it decreased by 3.1% compared to the previous year. The market share of Parasoft Virtualize is 19.4% and it decreased by 7.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Service Virtualization
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

Aphiwat Leetavorn. - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 5, 2022
Is scalable and easy to use, but the monitoring feature needs improvement
My customers use it to replace the mainframe of each system that's difficult to provide in a test environment. We use virtualization or intelligent mockup It is easy to use. This is what I tell my customers. The coding is easier to develop as well. The monitoring feature is not impressive…
RP
Apr 16, 2020
Supports MessageQueue. Provides the ability to test applications detached from integration middleware.
We now have the ability to test our complex applications completely detached from integration middleware. This improves the reliability, speed, cost, and simplicity of testing MessageQueue support: Our infrastructure was designed with the ability to detach client systems via MessageQueue queue…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The support for integration patterns and the ease of use to wizard-based utility is what I would consider the most important features for service virtualization platforms."
"It is easy to use. This is what I tell my customers. The coding is easier to develop as well."
"The most valuable feature is SAP virtualization."
"The most valuable feature is that it reduces the dependency so that the down time of the environment is not a major cost. That cost can be used for something else like the cloud."
"The feature which is most valuable in this solution is the ease of use. The product is very easy to use and very easy to implement."
"The initial setup is quite easy to manage."
 

Cons

"The monitoring feature is not impressive because they use Windows for so much monitoring. They set a lock on the window, and then we have to gather the information from the main monitoring feature in the Windows server. There is not enough capacity for problem solving performance issues."
"HPE products are good, but they never make a product for a specific use. They make a product for the enterprise because that is their vision. They like multi-generational business plans. That means that they don't deliver small bits and pieces, but rather, they deliver to the enterprise."
"More support for different protocols. I would love to see more wizards rather than relying on some custom coding, which you can use C# as well as Visual Basic scripting. In the service virtualization platform, I would love to see more wizard features as well as the ability to connect to an external database, which by the way, we have put an enhancement request in for. I'd love to see that in the service virtualization platform."
"The integration with other solutions, such as ALM and Jira, should be improved."
"The current protocol needs to be updated to be much more flexible. The product needs more technical flexibility in implementation and customization."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution, but you can get discounts. You have to buy one server and one designer together, for example, and it may cost 15 million Thai Baht."
"Micro Service Virtualization is very expensive. The pricing of this product is in line with all of the other big name-brand products."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Insurance Company
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
32%
Computer Software Company
11%
Healthcare Company
9%
Logistics Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus Service Virtualization?
It is easy to use. This is what I tell my customers. The coding is easier to develop as well.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Service Virtualization?
It's an expensive solution, but you can get discounts. You have to buy one server and one designer together, for example, and it may cost 15 million Thai Baht.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus Service Virtualization?
The monitoring feature is not impressive because they use Windows for so much monitoring. They set a lock on the window, and then we have to gather the information from the main monitoring feature ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Service Virtualization, HPE Service Virtualization
Parasoft Service Virtualization
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Virgin Media, TTNet
Alaska Airlines, Cox Automotive, Comcast, Lufthansa, Samsung, WoodmenLife, Caesars Entertainment, Capital One, REI
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, OpenText, SmartBear and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: June 2024.
787,061 professionals have used our research since 2012.