We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The stability is good."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company."
"One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"The user interface is fine."
"I like how you can make modifications to the script on LoadRunner Enterprise. You don't have to go into the IDE itself."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting, correlations, and parameterization. Debugging is also easy."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"What I like most in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the comparison between two different exhibitions which gives value to my company. I also like that the solution is user-friendly, especially in terms of making specific changes. For example, in the past, you can't see the changes when you upload scripts into the Performance Center, but now, it has that visibility, so whenever you want, you can change the script in the Performance Center. I also like that Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is the only tool you can utilize for all your needs, even for different protocols and scripting. The solution also has the latest features, for example, networkability, where it can, within the UI, follow the waterfall model. You can use the insights in the Performance Center of Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise to address or test URLs that usually take up much time."
"Provides the performance of load test applications and reliably on good reporting."
"With LoadRunner Enterprise, doing various types of performance testing, load testing, and automation testing has been very helpful for some of the teams."
"We are delivering fine performance results and performance recommendations using Performance Center."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."
"The support team needs to be more coordinated."
"The TruClient protocol works well but it takes a lot of memory to run those tests, which is something that can be improved."
"It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems."
"I know there are integrations with continuous testing. It's got tie-ins to some of the newer tools to allow continuous testing. I'd love to see us not have to customize it, but for it to be out of the box."
"The reporting has room for improvement."
"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."
"The worst thing about it is it did not have zero footprint on your PC."
More OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is ranked 5th in Performance Testing Tools with 81 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise writes "Saves time and effort, and makes it easy to set up scenarios and execute tests". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Apache JMeter. See our BlazeMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools 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.
