We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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 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."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"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."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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 Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, BrowserStack and Sauce Labs, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and OpenText UFT One. See our BlazeMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional 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.
