Previously, we were not using any other tools.

We were using TestPartner, which is a UI-based application for capturing and creating regression test cases for regression test automation. It was VB based and at the same time you couldn't scale it up. You could only leverage the same functional test for performance. So, the advantage we have with CA Service Virtualization is that whenever you create any function regression, we can use it, as is, for performance testing. We host it out there on the simulator, saying that, now, instead of running one user, run 500 users. Good to go.

But, your PC needed to be on when TestPartner ran. You could not lock your machine because it was all keyboard and mouse driven. We didn't want that.

We didn't have a solution beforehand. Essentially, we had to wait for developers to give us the code. What this helped us to do is get over that bottleneck and not wait for assets to be available. We were able to quickly go out and have the testing or automation team build out a solution beforehand, based on the contract, and then go forward.

We knew we needed to invest in a new solution because of time scaling costs. Testing environments were just becoming more complex. We were having to quote ridiculous amounts of money to build more and more end-to-end environments. The challenge was that every project wanted to have their own. They wouldn't share. "Why should I share? Why don't you share?"

With SV, the whole idea is that you can have your own version, I don't care what you do with it. I can spin up as many versions as you need, very quickly, cost-effectively. Beforehand it was, you can only sustain the growth of bigger end-to-end environments to a certain extent before you say, "Sorry, there's no room left." You can't say that to the business. The business needs to change, so you have to find an alternative way.

We used Charles Proxy and it required much more manual work. This product is much more automatic.

We built a solution in-house that coupled with data, the configuration of endpoints and how the app needed to be configured in a given environment. We had it coupled with ServiceNow to do workflow, and then trigger the builds, but then we could also deploy, trigger the deployment of the Release Automation product and kind of integrate into that whole flow.

We didn't have a previous solution. I've been with the company about 18 months and came in the early part of 2015. We're fortunate enough to get in with our General Motors ELA and I got the licenses for us to be able to start doing the CA SV setup for 2016.

We made the move because of a constraint that we have today. It's a constraint with mainframe capacity and availability. This is basically an opportunity for us to remove that constraint and that's why we need Service Virtualization.

Previously, we were using Java-based, homegrown tools for our automation processes.

I'm a systems architect. I had a lot of experience with the development infrastructure architecture. I see that there are problems in all production areas. I always do research on the latest and greatest products. CA is one of the companies I've been following for almost 15 years. I discovered Service Virtualization when I learned that CA acquired ITKO.

We had a fairly mature testing consulting practice for more than ten years based on Mercury's platform (Quality Center, now owned by HP). We still use Quality Center extensively and have added CA Service Virtualization to our 'tool bag'. We did not purchase CA Service Virtualization as a replacement for any product we were using. We viewed CA Service Virtualization as a game changer, giving us the ability to add test environment virtualization in order to reduce test cycles for our clients.

I had only used SoapUI before. LISA has better built-in capabilities that reduce the need for scripting/coding. Also, modeling is appealing and easily understandable.

We've looked at Service Virtualization for the last few years because we knew the benefits of it but for which we never had the financial backing to purchase a tool. We've known that we've needed it for a long time just because of the benefits and abilities to transform the IT organization. It took a big change in our IT organization to buy it.

We considered HP SV, IBM GreenHat or whatever it is called now, Parasoft, and another smaller one.

We did not previously use a different solution. We had a homegrown solution, and that was easy and cheaper, but the problem was maintaining that homegrown solution over a long period of time. It was quite an investment, so buying this product made sense.

When selecting a vendor, we look equally at the process and technology aspects, from end to end; what are the services they can provide.

We didn’t have a previous solution for service virtualization. This is our first solution; we directly implemented it.

Previously, we did use HP Service Test and SoapUI software, but we find this solution to be more scalable and stable.

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.

We actually stumbled upon it both in terms of good luck and prior experience. Prior experience, not from our perspective, but from one of our VPs, who happen to work at CA before he came to our organization. Combined with a need from us to not invest in additional development environments for some of our flow-through work, where applications needed to talk to multiple other systems. Also, when we were working on multiple projects, we had a need to duplicate those environments, which resulted in having to spend extra money on it. 

What we stumbled upon was the Service Virtualization tool that our previous VP had worked with, remembered about it, and we started investigating, which led to our investment in the product. 

We got introduced to the CA sales people via our other company. The vendor came in to introduce the product. After looking at it, we found that it fit to our needs. We were struggling with a lot of gaps in our SDLC and so we decided to do a PoC, and it worked out.

For us, the most important factor while selecting a vendor was the continued customer support. CA was able to give us the professional environment and continued support.

For API test previously I used Selenium. To create/maintain a test script in Selenium Java coding is required. With DevTest, Java programming knowledge is not mandatory. We can do most of the things using in built DevTest assertions and filters without any scripting.

We bought Service Virtualization because we are in a DevOps journey. If you are in need of services that are not available, you need to have a solution. 

I did not previously use a different solution. At the time we started in 2009, this was the only solution.

Prior to engaging with CA, I had identified the need. In terms of needing to isolate myself from both data environments, back end systems. I knew I needed to do it. I had actually started on a personal journey, working with a couple of other vendor companies to try to figure out if we could actually build the solution. At that point, I was introduced to someone from CA and the initial LISA product, as it was called at the time. That product matched exactly what we needed at the time. It was a match made in heaven at that point. We started down the journey at that point.

I have used both CA LISA as well as one of their competitors. When the competitor was chosen, it was due to overall capabilities and needs of the client, the cost, and the long term capabilities.

Their competitor offered an enterprise solution, whereas CA's costs was user-license based, and since the client wasn't sure of how many users we would scale to within a year, it was a better choice to go with the competitor.

When we started API and vacant testing, we needed a tool to support it. We did some research in the market and this solution has most of our requirements: it's stable, feature rich, and has many years in the market. This solution stood out as the best fit for our requirements. They are number one in service virtualization, although they are definitely not number one in application testing.

We previously used a different solution. We switched because there was a gap in our testing which we needed to fill in.

Listening to our executives, one of the key difficulties that the development teams were having is the ability to test faster, so they can't deliver content faster to our customers because they can't test fast enough mostly because of these dependencies and the outside suppliers. Having a service virtualization solution gives us the ability to disconnect ourselves from our suppliers and those blocking dependencies, allows us to go faster.

We're not really KPI-driven. It's really can we allow the team to test without the dependencies where they weren't able to do that before?

We previously used SoapUI and this is much easier to configure.

I think we were just using many different tools to achieve the same thing. We needed one tool to do it all, and this fit the bill.

I used HPE SV before. It was very user-friendly but cannot be compared with CA DevTest, as it lacks a lot of the important features.

We were not using another solution. We were doing manual stubbing. Developers were creating their own mini-virtualizations and this tool has helped us create them.

We did not have any previous solutions, but our organization was moving towards this. We evaluated a few products and CA seemed to be a good option that will fit all of our needs.

Initially, we used scripts, JCL, and CICS transactions. CA Service Virtualization has simplified and enhanced this process.

I have worked with SoapUI Pro, HP ServiceTest (now UFT), IBM RIT, etc. This product was taken by a customer and it was one of the best products for virtualization.

As I mentioned, we were using a home grown Groovy/Selenium/SoapUI framework. Once a customer bought the CA Service Virtualization license, we were forced to use this. However, we found the product to be more robust than our framework.

We previously used SoapUI Mocking; it is simple static virtual services. For dynamic behavior that takes less time to create (hardly two minutes), DevTest is the ultimate.

We originally used Green Hat, but CA Service Virtualization provides greater flexibility.

For SV no. We have not switched from any other solution, we started with LISA. The main factors why we decided to go with this tool was the capability towards virtualization and protocols supported.

We were using LISA 6, THEN upgraded to LISA 7.5 as the new features were beneficial for meeting business requirements.

We were on the lookout for a service virtualization tool. 

Ease of use and reliable solution.

All our teams were using their own solutions. We wanted something more universal.

I’ve used HP QTP/UFT tool for other clients, specifically for automated GUI-based testing of desktop applications (.NET/WPF, Stingray, Java Swing). I can’t directly answer question about choosing CA DevTest as I was not in the tool decision group for current clients, but it’s very suitable for SOAP, REST, JMS, DB testing. CA DevTest would not be suitable for GUI-based testing of desktop applications which our current client does not need.

Yes, I have used similar solutions from two other vendors but love the UI, and ease of use of CA Service Virtualization.

I've worked on RIT also. It's not that easy to use and lots of things are missing. But CA SV makes it so easy. It's three steps to create the virtual service and deploy.

DevTest was the first tool we used for virtualization.

We used a lot of other solutions, but switched to CA Service Virtualization because this one tool can cover all of our requirements.

I used SOAP UI briefly. I switched to CA SV as it has more advanced features, supports almost all types of services and moreover has better support.

I wasn't using any previous solution. When I came to T-Mobile, SV was a fairly new tool at T-Mobile. So, we didn't have any other previous solution. We used this one, and none of the other solutions that have been out there have been better, so we've kept using it. Didn't need to switch, and we have been continuing to invest in it, because it's been meeting and exceeding our needs.

We used SOAPUI Pro for when web services and JMS queues had to be mocked. We shifted to CA for other protocols. But customers are looking at the return on the investment they made. Convincing them becomes a challenge.

We were using SoapUI and we were looking for a higher level of integration.

I had never used a solution for service virtualization prior to this. We chose this solution because of our partnership with CA.

We have not used other solutions other than using UFT for automation.

I like working with the CA Service Virtualization product, so I'll stick with it. Given a chance I would like to work on Parasoft and Green Hat as well.

We weren't previously using another solution but after analyzing various options we directly selected CA LISA.

We had mock-up type products but they aren’t sophisticated enough.

We used rational integration tester. Switched because CA Service Virtualization (LISA) has some better features as compared to RIT.

Yes, we previously used other solutions but switched to CA Service Virtualization because it supports more protocols. We were looking at SoupUI but it only supports web services while CA Service Virtualization supports mainframe and other protocols.

I previously used a different solution, just to explore it.

As a services organization, we need to have hands-on experience with different products, so that we can give different customers our point of view.

We were using SoapUI (this is also one of the strongest base tools for SOA testing), which is limited to the testing of web services. Service Virtualization provides a different world of opportunities in SOA testing, which helps us to provide a better SOA solution to clients.

No, but I have tried exploring IBM and HP tools but found that the ease of use, maturity and user friendliness of CA SV can't be compared.

I have used LISA version 7.5, DevTest Solutions version 8.1 and am currently using DevTest 9.1. The tool always had some additional features included in each of its releases and it fixed the bugs of the previous release. That made migrating to the newer version more exciting.

No previous solution was used.

No.