Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

The primary use case of this solution is for creating virtual services, creating API testing, and creating virtual data.

The most valuable features are the recording and creating of virtual services. Especially in creating IBM MQ virtual services through recording.

The learning curve is an area that needs improvement, as well as stability and performance.

Stability has to be improved. It is not a stable solution. Especially, when you create custom solutions there are issues with memory accumulation. I would prefer that they stop adding features, which is what they do. Instead, focus on stabilizing it and make it work. 

What's the point of adding new features? It just increases the cost.

I'll give you an example; CA and I have continuous applications, and insight is one of the service activation components. It has never worked in any project, just for the namesake and for showing they have this one. 

Support needs improvement, they don't support the migration from an older version to the current version.

The price can be reduced.

This portal, after one week, if it is enterprise-assigned, will stop working. Now we have a policy that every week, we have a scheduled restart of everything, and maintain it. The stability is so poor that this is what is required. 

Broadcom acquired it recently, approximately a year ago. Broadcom was not involved with the software before. They were known for having a history with the hardware, physical devices, and appliances. 

Now, they are focusing on both. Much of their technical expertise, have gone. There is no expertise.

I have been working with Broadcom Service Virtualization for approximately five years.

It's not stable.

This solution is scalable, but it also relies on the stability factor.

If the client wants to add a new component or new hardware, it can be done, but for how long will it be stable? It will not be stable. 

I'll add it to a new sequence in the virtual environment. When it's added, the port will not display and we have to reset everything.

After everything is added there is a new challenge. With the amount of data that it has to handle it causes memory leak issues. The memory accumulation usually happens and then it gets stopped, then has to be restarted. 

Stability is still a huge issue. In one way we have a solution that scales, with provisions that are easy for scaling, but the stability is not there.

It's scalable, but as you scale you will encounter stability issues.

The technical support only supports recent versions, even if there are some critical issues.

For example, I was in 10.1. and now using the current version 10.6, but they have stopped supporting 10.1. When I had to migrate from 10.1 to 10.6, we had experienced some issues.

When contacting technical support they don't support the migration, because it's internal, and they ended our support. Once the support is ended for 10.1, you can't get it back.

The support and questions are tool-related, only. If there are some that are at a project level that we may have customized then they say it's beyond their support. At this point, it would require separate tools and advanced services. This would also incur an additional fee. 

For simple issues with current versions and for managing the tool, or for learning the tool, then technical support available. 

For project level and implementations, the technical support is not good.

Previously, I was using SoapUI for creating MockServices. I have also used WireMock. These two tools I have used.

Comparing to those, the differences are that both version services can be run locally.

I am a developer and I can create a local virtual service. I can create and deploy to a central location, which can avoid a lot of duplication. That is the key difference. 

Other tools for creating a stable service require some effort. Here, the new creation is managed.

The most recent version is not simple.

It's not easy and especially when you want to set up a distributed architecture, it gets a bit complex. For that, also, when we need something complex then true expertise is needed.

I am the specialist and a part of the team for managing this solution.

We implemented it ourselves with the occasional help from CA support.

There are additional fees for advanced-level technical support.

Our services are offered to all of our clients. Once they have purchased the product, we offer services and centrally configure this for others who have this feature. It's free. Instead of each and every project team buying their own products, we centrally buy it, we centrally manage the environment, and we provide it to the rest of the teams. This provides a way of cost-cutting and interacting.

This solution is definitely for large enterprise companies, not suitable for a small or medium-sized company. With large enterprise companies, we can use freeware tools. There are several freeware tools available.

Complex protocols are also available and can be applied only for large enterprise companies.

My recommendations are that this solution is best suited for large organizations and for internally running their referral services. If you want, the requirements are simple.

You can use the freeware that is available. Or, if you want to use it for a central log, then use it, develop and enhance it more. The development technicians will assist you if you want to run this securely as a centralized enterprise-level solution.

I would recommend this solution for large organizations. Nonetheless, they have to make a lot of improvements.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We mark up several APIs from web servers, JMS, and MQ Services with this solution. We use it to support our performance testing. Some of the virtual services that have been built by this solution will support somewhere around 2000 to 3000GPS perfectly.

There are several areas that are easily configurable. A person, without having a lot of development experience, should be able to perform most of the functions.

There are many different features available to build services with adequate response times, recording of visitors.

Because I have not compared it with other toolsets, I don't have a lot of insight. The only area that I can think of at the moment is the building of automated APA test cases. Based on your services, this is an area that requires improvement.

I would like to have more flexibility towards the mainframe virtualization and also in JDBC virtualization.

I have been working with Broadcom Service Virtualization, CA Dev Test CA Service Virtualization, hands-on for the last ten years.

We are using the latest version of this solution.

We have a closed set of people in our organization who are using this product. 

This solution has been consumed by a wide variety of projects. 

We have approximately 30 users who are using it.

We have great support, even though we do not have an enterprise agreement.

In terms of stability and scalability, if we have had any issues, we have great support.

With support, it depends on the level. If it is level one, you can call. If it is level two, they will issue a support ticket and it will be addressed within 8 to 12 hours.

Tier three and tier four is knowledge-based, and you are referred to their portal, and also communities. 

We can look into it and search for customers with similar issues, and they have detailed solutions.

If you are not able to resolve your issue then the support team will assist you with your issue.

Previously, we were not using any other tools.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We did not use a vendor or reseller. We completed the implementation in-house.

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. 

Any number of people can use it, and it has three performance inputs and any number of functional servers.

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.

I would recommend this product to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Broadcom Service virtualization a nine out of ten.