We have been comparing it with other tools. 

Broadcom is expensive when compared to other open-source or low-cost toolsets. 

We have been doing the feasibility with other low-cost tools and the use cases that were supported with Broadcom were not supported by ReadyAPI. This is why we chose to go with Broadcom Service Virtualization.

We were looking at performance testing tools. We had HPE LoadPunner before. We looked at it, but that was a while ago. But, with the benefits of service installation that Lisa provided, along with a performance background with the infrastructure for supporting performance testing as well, at that point in time, it was a one-tool-fits-all application for us.

I think it was just CA Service Virtualization we were evaluating at the time. We were looking at the IBM service virtualization offering, and I think Parasoft was in there as well. It just came down to this: it was the best offering for us at the time.

I need a vendor to understand my business and be proactive in telling me how they can help me with my business, rather than just being a vendor. You've got to be more than a vendor these days to stand out above the others.

It was a corporate decision to change. They looked for a solution that most accurately solved the need at hand efficiently. The most direct applicable solution to my needs is the important thing.

We evaluated other options, I'd say lightly, very lightly, because we have used CA within our company from a while. We know that they are the market leader, we know there are probably not many competitors for the tool that we want to use.

We looked at the HPE UFT software.

We also use HPE for testing right now, particularly Mobile Center. Not every product will address 100% of the issues.

However, CA Service Virtualization is totally number one in the market, no one comes close to this. HPE introduced a product recently, but they're nowhere close. They need to spend a lot of time on that product.

HP has it's own approach to test virtualization which we evaluated at the same time we evaluated CA Service Virtualization, but we found it to be behind in it's capability compared to CA Service Virtualization.

We considered HP Service Virtualization, IBM Green Hat or whatever it is called now, Parasoft, and another smaller one.

We were looking for a tool that met the needs of what we're trying to do. We have specific criteria. Most tools can do the basic web services, message queues, etc. What set CA apart was the ability to do the Java Virtualization.

I don't want to disclose which vendors were on the short list, but there were a couple of vendors, and we found out that those products were not mature enough.

It was decided at the enterprise level well before I got involved.

We did not look at other vendors. CA happened to be the first one.

We did do a bake-off. We looked at three tools and CA was the best. Therefore, CA/ITKO was the choice.

There were definitely other vendors on our short list. They all had quality or decent products. Where they fell short was on the service side, which is why I pushed for the CA solution. Backend services, web services, is its primary function. We also use it for some MQ services.

Reviewed options with Parasoft Virtualize and HP's virtualization tools.

There were four vendors on the short list: 

• CA Service Virtualization
• SOAtest by Parasoft
• Green Hat (now Rational Integration Tester) by IBM.
• ReadiAPI by SmartBear

We chose CA as it fulfilled most of our requirements.

We looked at HPE, but ultimately we chose CA because they were able to meet our challenges. My biggest point was to prove it in our environment. CA stepped up and did a proof of concept. It took six months and we gave them the biggest challenge and they figured it out.

We did not have a solution before. We went with CA Service Virtualization because of their ability to have a long-term customer relationship, and the ability to work with us to get the product off the ground.

We compared it to our existing solution at the time, SoapUI.

We've had this one for several years, but we just started using over the last two years or so. No other options were used.

We had Pivotal Tracker and probably a couple of other vendors as well. I don't remember their names. We went with CA Service Virtualization due to the user interface. We found it to be more intuitive than the others. We felt that it can probably scale up to the needs of what we have within the organization in terms of integrating with the rest of the ecosystem.

Our team did evaluate other products, such as SoapUI and Topaz.

We had evaluated multiple frameworks because we were working in a multi-vendor scenario. Every vendor brought their frameworks and solutions to the table. I don’t know if the customer evaluated any other commercial products. A few of our team members had already worked on iTKO/Service Virtualization on other projects; and they provided good feedback on the product.

We evaluated another solution, SoapUI NG Pro.

Before choosing this product, we evaluated SoapUI Pro, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server/GreenHat and Parasoft SOAtest.

Choosing this product was a management decision and we would prefer other solutions because in order to achieve a customized solution one would have to do scripting. This tool needs to offer a lot more options before it can be marketed as a codeless environment that can really help an organization chive results with such a testing team that is not good at coding.

The tool was evaluated by an architect team. Yes, they had compared it with some competitive vendors such as HP and then purchased the CA license.

A few other options were considered from Parasoft, HP and IBM.

We did look at a couple of tools in the market. We did a PoC on DevTest. Back then it was called Lisa. Everything went well, so that's how we ended up getting into DevTest.

We didn't do a POC on the IBM product, I think it's called Green Hat - IBM's has a service virtualization tool - and we were actually contemplating that tool as well.

We went with CA because the PoC went well. There were a couple of guys who came in and actually helped us out with all the use case scenarios that we had, and we were able to implement it successfully. That was one of the reasons we went ahead with CA.

We also looked at Parasoft, but we thought that CA met our vendor requirements more closely.

When choosing a vendor, the most important criteria is whether we can have a long-term partnership with them. Obviously, cost is also an important factor, as well as software reliability. We also look at the future road map for the product.

No other vendors were looked at.

There was another one called Green Hat by IBM. We were looking at that. DevTest seemed to be a lot easier to use. Also, it worked with TIBCO and with other technologies that we were using.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options.

We analyzed the tools on the market including: HP, IBM Green Hat and CA SV. Each product has its own merits but we found that CA SV is more mature and matches our requirements best so we selected it for our service virtualization needs.

We actually did PoCs with other tools, then came up with the pros and cons. This was the product that checked the most boxes.

We have evaluated several products more than once, starting with SOAPUI Pro, IBM RTVS (earlier Green Hat), and Parasoft Virtualize.

We brought on some new senior management directors and looked at different tools. We evaluated a number of different API testing tools. I don't know them all. Choosing CA was a management decision. I think my new manager had used or seen the tool in the past.

Green Hat and Parasoft.

We analyzed the tools on the market including: HP, IBM RIT and CA LISA. Each product has its own merits but we found that CA LISA is more mature and suites our requirement best so we selected it for our service virtualization needs.

I didn’t evaluate other solutions. I was an early customer, they invented this space and delivered a great solution.

There are a number of tools that are available in the market for same purpose

This is the first product in the line that we have used.

I did not evaluate other options.

No other options were considered.