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.
"Scalability has actually worked well and we are able to bring it to multiple environments."
"The most valuable features are the recording and creating of virtual services."
"You can have a lot of different people with different technologies use the tool, without any programming experience at all, all the way up to people who can program. And then, the more technical that you are, the more programming you have, the more you're able to customize the tool."
"I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable."
"Easy to understand ways of creating stubs."
"It is easy to use, has a faster time to market, and provides flexibility."
"We are able to quickly scale our requests. We have tested across thousands of requests. We have had no problems so far."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The workstation component has a very out-dated UI and is in dire need of a facelift."
"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 would rate the tech support a nine out of ten. They need more knowledge about the connectivity to DevOps orchestration."
"We had to implement an external service catalog. We put it in ServiceNow. I would like to see an integrated service catalog."
"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."
"From a reporting perspective I think we would like to have a more user-friendly approach."
"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