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.
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"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."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good."
"It's a very powerful tool."
"This is a product that has a lot of capabilities and is the most mature tool of its kind in the market."
"The most beneficial features of the solution are flexibility and versatility in their performance."
"Probably its prime advantage, it provides a centralized location for testing."
"With Performance Center, the version upgrade is easy. You just have to roll out the new patch or the new version."
"The solution supports a number of protocols."
"The tool is very easy to set up and get running."
"The solution is a very user-friendly tool, especially when you compare it to a competitor like BlazeMeter."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"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."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"The solution can be improved by making it more user-friendly, and by including autocorrelation capability."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, I need to spend a lot of time training people, while on other low-code or no-code platforms, I need not invest that much time."
"We'd like the product to include protocol identifiers whenever a tester wants to test a new application."
"I'd rate the scalability a six out of ten. The main reason is that it's a very expensive application. Other companies might not be able to afford it. For example, if we need to test an application with 10,000 concurrent users, the license can cost a lot of money. That's where OpenText tools shoot themselves in the foot compared to other tools. Because of the price, many companies, like one I used to work for, decided not to renew their licenses and switched to open-source testing tools."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of this solution could be less expensive. However, this category of solutions is expensive."
"Sometimes, the code is not generated when we record the scripts in the backend."
"Offering a direct integration feature would ensure a completely smooth experience."
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 and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText Silk Performer, Tricentis NeoLoad and Eggplant Performance. 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.
