We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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."They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"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 offers flexibility with its configurations."
"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 product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"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."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"It is feature-rich. It supports most protocols, which is important because I am in charge of a team at the bank, and we do performance testing for all kinds of different applications. We have tons of them. We even do video streams."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"The reports are very relevant to the customers’ expectations."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The record and playback feature is the most valuable feature. It's all driven by the script, so it's a script-based tool where the background tracing starts. Java's background process does a lot of tracing. The process starts in the background. It sees what peaks of volumes that the process can handle. It's easy to use because it's script based, record, and playback. I"
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"The solution can scale."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"We encounter hurdles while running the professional version for on-premise setup."
"An area for improvement is analytics on why response times are slow from certain countries."
"Sometimes, you are utilizing one of the low generators, then all of a sudden if you discontinue from one project, it actually deletes the entire low generator."
"The product price could be more affordable."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"There are three modules in the system that are different products packaged into one, and they can sometimes be difficult to figure out, so they should be better integrated with each other."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is ranked 6th in Performance Testing Tools with 39 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is rated 8.2. 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 Cloud writes "Enterprise modeling, server maintenance, and competitive pricing". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Perfecto and BrowserStack, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter and OpenText UFT One. See our BlazeMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud 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.
