We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"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."
"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 solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"Enables us to test most of the products and projects that we have across all the different technologies, without having to look at other tools."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"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."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"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."
"We still have some issues with integration with things like SiteScope which, obviously, being another HPE product should be very straightforward, but there are always issues around that."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"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."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Load Testing Tools with 41 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Load Testing Tools with 76 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, Perfecto and BrowserStack, 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 Load Testing Tools vendors and best Performance Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.