IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server [EOL] vs OpenText Service Virtualization comparison

"It has very easy and good validation techniques used for SWIFT, XSD, and WSDL validations."

"Indeed, I would recommend it; one major reason being that this product not only has a robust infrastructure implementation, it also has good technical support supporting standards from IBM."

"As we have used most of the MQ stub, "MQ recording" is the most useful feature."

"It is very stable, rock-solid, and there is a possibility of about 20-32% cost savings."

"The feature which is most valuable in this solution is the ease of use. The product is very easy to use and very easy to implement."

"I was blown away with how fast the implementation was."

"This product has provided us the capability to virtualize dependent systems, which has resulted in the following improvements to our organization: More productivity No dependency on third-party systems Faster test execution cycles."

"We choose HPE servers because they're rock solid."

"Service Virtualization cuts down dependency across dev as well as any third party components."

"The most valuable feature is that it reduces the dependency so that the down time of the environment is not a major cost. That cost can be used for something else like the cloud."

"It is easy to use. This is what I tell my customers. The coding is easier to develop as well."

"With Service Virtualization, it's much less expensive and we can turn them off and on when we need to."

"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."

"They need to move it to the cloud."

"However, some peripheral features need vast improvement, namely the reporting and the dashboard areas."

"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."

"Sometimes it stops working after switching remote and local servers."

"The stability of the product, it’s still a work in progress."

"I think the biggest issues that I've seen, and this is a personal view of mine, is that most of the HPE products have a common look and feel to them."

"HP should work on providing better scripting support and include more communication and transport protocols."

"I’m rating it a 7 because it is not a fully evolved virtualization tool compared to other tools offering the same service."

"HPE products are good, but they never make a product for a specific use."

"More support for different protocols. I would love to see more wizards rather than relying on some custom coding, which you can use C# as well as Visual Basic scripting. In the service virtualization platform, I would love to see more wizard features as well as the ability to connect to an external database, which by the way, we have put an enhancement request in for. I'd love to see that in the service virtualization platform."

"The current protocol needs to be updated to be much more flexible. The product needs more technical flexibility in implementation and customization."

"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."

"It's an expensive solution, but you can get discounts. You have to buy one server and one designer together, for example, and it may cost 15 million Thai Baht."

"Micro Service Virtualization is very expensive. The pricing of this product is in line with all of the other big name-brand products."