Compare CA Service Virtualization vs. UFT (QTP)

CA Service Virtualization is ranked 1st in Service Virtualization with 11 reviews while UFT (QTP) which is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 10 reviews. CA Service Virtualization is rated 8.2, while UFT (QTP) is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CA Service Virtualization writes "Supports multiple protocols, enables us to virtualize calls to third-party vendors and save". On the other hand, the top reviewer of UFT (QTP) writes "With regularly occurring application releases, any QA team member can execute tests (regression suites) stored in ALM/Quality Center, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". CA Service Virtualization is most compared with Parasoft Service Virtualization, Micro Focus Service Virtualization and SmartBear ServiceV Pro, whereas UFT (QTP) is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and UFT Pro (LeanFT).
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
CA Service Virtualization Logo
30,022 views|3,095 comparisons
UFT (QTP) Logo
56,252 views|16,010 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Technologies, SmartBear, Parasoft and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: July 2019.
352,760 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 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.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.

Read more »

We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources.Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier.The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.

Read more »

Cons
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.CA actually releases a new version every year. We had issues with the upgrade prior to the latest one.

Read more »

Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation).I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers.Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function.I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved.Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification.It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this.

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 »

For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand.It's an expensive solution.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
352,760 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
1st
Views
30,022
Comparisons
3,095
Reviews
12
Average Words per Review
532
Avg. Rating
8.4
1st
Views
56,252
Comparisons
16,010
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
850
Avg. Rating
8.9
Top Comparisons
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Also Known As
ITKO LISA, CA LISAMicro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
Learn
CA Technologies
Micro Focus
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.

QuickTest Professional is now known as Micro Focus Unified Functional Testing, and is an automated testing tool that provides unified AI, GUI, and Business Process testing.

With QuickTest Professional, you can free up IT resources to focus on other areas, while the automated software takes care of all your application software testing requirements. Testing happens continuously and quickly, and so nips any potential issues in the bud. QuickTest Professional saves money and time, and optimizes business productivity and overall user experience.

Offer
Learn more about CA Service Virtualization
Learn more about UFT (QTP)
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, CSS Insurance, Revolution IT, Credit Suisse, and General Electric Company.
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm25%
Comms Service Provider21%
Manufacturing Company8%
Retailer8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm62%
Individual & Family Service11%
Insurance Company8%
Comms Service Provider5%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm36%
Retailer14%
Insurance Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm30%
Manufacturing Company17%
Software R&D Company11%
Healthcare Company9%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business2%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise89%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business1%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise79%
REVIEWERS
Small Business15%
Midsize Enterprise17%
Large Enterprise69%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business9%
Midsize Enterprise8%
Large Enterprise83%
Find out what your peers are saying about CA Technologies, SmartBear, Parasoft and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: July 2019.
352,760 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