Compare CA Service Virtualization vs. IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server

CA Service Virtualization is ranked 1st in Service Virtualization with 10 reviews while IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server is ranked 4th in Service Virtualization with 2 reviews. CA Service Virtualization is rated 8.6, while IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of CA Service Virtualization writes "It is easy to use, has a faster time to market, and provides flexibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server writes "It helped us to build IBM MQ based stubs and automated test cases. I would like it to be more user friendly". CA Service Virtualization is most compared with SmartBear ServiceV Pro, Parasoft Service Virtualization and Micro Focus Service Virtualization, whereas IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server is most compared with CA Service Virtualization, Parasoft Service Virtualization and SmartBear ServiceV Pro. See our CA Service Virtualization vs. IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Service Virtualization vs. IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

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

Pros
The ability to create virtual services and deploy them as Docker containers, and include them in our Jenkins build pipelines, is a valuable feature.The most valuable features include the capability to use other program languages such as PLSQR, JAVA, .NET.I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable.The ability to do parallel development and testing reduces our costs for duplicating environments, improving the productivity of our developers, and bringing products faster to market.It is definitely scalable.We have been using it extensively for the shift left process and testing. It helps us to accelerate and virtualize services and assets that we don't have. It enables to test faster.We have had developers produce code later than we wanted to, but we've had some other stuff that was dependent on that. So what we were able to do was virtualize these assets and then go forward with our developer and not have to wait for these additional services to be available.We are able to quickly scale our requests. We have tested across thousands of requests. We have had no problems so far.

Read more »

As we have used most of the MQ stub, "MQ recording" is the most useful feature.It has very easy and good validation techniques used for SWIFT, XSD, and WSDL validations.

Read more »

Cons
The workstation component has a very out-dated UI and is in dire need of a facelift.UI should be more user friendly: better usability, more testing oriented.I would rate the tech support a nine out of ten. They need more knowledge about the connectivity to DevOps orchestration.Needs some additional lightweight, portable elements.​From a reporting perspective I think we would like to have a more user-friendly approach.I really want to see more of the "express" kind of model, where you get a little bit for free. I'd love to be able to see you be able to edit and author tests without having to be connected to a licensed server. And then, if you want to go and execute tests, then you go and connect to the server... I think it would unblock people to be able to do a lot more work from home or from remote places, where they can't really connect to the server.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.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
I think the pricing is quite fair because this solution provides a lot of functionalities, and is quite stable.

Read more »

The product has a free trial available, which has saves on the initial investment costs.IBM RTVS is not that expensive compare to other giants, but it is still much ahead of some other tool having less features.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
1st
Views
7,471
Comparisons
2,581
Reviews
11
Average Words per Review
518
Avg. Rating
8.5
4th
Views
1,273
Comparisons
516
Reviews
1
Average Words per Review
665
Avg. Rating
7.0
Top Comparisons
Also Known As
ITKO LISA, CA LISAGreen Hat, IBM RTVS
Learn
CA (A Broadcom Company)
IBM
Overview

CA Service Virtualization acts as a catalyst for DevOps by simulating constrained or unavailable systems across the software development lifecycle (SDLC). This allows developers, testers and performance teams to work in parallel to accelerate app delivery, as well as to “shift-left” the app testing to improve application quality. CA Service Virtualization was previously known as LISA, the product from the ITKO acquisition.

Testing environments are often expensive and can have limited availability. IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server helps you shift testing to the left by removing dependencies on components that are unavailable or already in use. These components are simulated at the API layer, supporting a wide variety of technologies, allowing your team to test the riskiest elements earlier in the delivery lifecycle.

Offer
Learn more about CA Service Virtualization
Learn more about IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Sample Customers
Union Bank, Swisscom, Autotrader, KPN, ING Bank, Best Buy, American Family Insurance, TESCO, Telefonica, Molina Healthcare, California DMV, Aktia, City Index, Con-way, DirecTV, GRU Airport, Liquidnet, NAB, Nordstrom, T-Mobile, TIM Brasil, Sandhata Technologies Ltd., Qantas Airways
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm24%
Comms Service Provider20%
Retailer7%
Manufacturing Company7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm40%
Software R&D Company27%
Individual & Family Service8%
Insurance Company7%
No Data Available
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business3%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise88%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise10%
Large Enterprise81%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Service Virtualization vs. IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email