Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apache JMeter vs BlazeMeter vs OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.7
Apache JMeter offers scalable, cost-effective performance testing, integrating well with CICD and outperforming HP Performance Center in returns.
Sentiment score
6.4
BlazeMeter improves testing, reduces costs, increases productivity, supports DevOps integration, and offers superior scalability for enhanced service delivery.
Sentiment score
7.4
Users report cost savings and improved clarity with OpenText Core Performance Engineering, citing significant annual reductions in testing expenses.
With Apache JMeter, I have gained great statistics for performance and server metrics.
LoadRunner Cloud helps with risk elimination by reducing performance degradation in production, ensuring a better end-user experience.
The ROI is not necessarily cost savings. Sometimes a customer wants to use OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, or it's the only tool that will solve the problem depending on the application.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
Apache JMeter relies on community support, praised for efficiency but lacking the dedicated assistance of commercial tools.
Sentiment score
7.4
BlazeMeter's customer service is praised for knowledge and responsiveness, with room for improvement in response speed and availability.
Sentiment score
6.4
Opinions on OpenText Core Performance Engineering's support are mixed, with praise for customer service but issues with response times.
The support for Apache JMeter is excellent.
Apache JMeter has strong support through its vast Java-based community on platforms like Stack Overflow.
Apache JMeter relies more on community support.
The customer service is not available 24/7, which affects its rating.
I faced issues with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud support when a problem took three to four months to resolve, which negatively impacted our project, especially when key team members were unavailable during leave periods.
It's important to note that OpenText has recently taken over Micro Focus.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Apache JMeter is scalable for large loads, but requires careful configuration and infrastructure, especially for enterprise-level setups.
Sentiment score
7.3
BlazeMeter is praised for scalable performance to thousands of users, though some seek enhanced dynamic user features.
Sentiment score
7.7
OpenText Core Performance Engineering scales efficiently for varied needs, handling up to two million users, with notable flexibility and support.
JMeter is highly scalable, easily handling increased loads through the use of multiple servers.
This restricts the number of users and necessitates increasing load agents or distributing the script across multiple machines.
For backend automation and performance testing with web services, web APIs, and queue management systems, I would rate Apache JMeter's scalability as between eight and nine.
BlazeMeter has the capability to simulate a higher number of users compared to JMeter standalone.
BlazeMeter is quite scalable, and I rate its scalability as nine out of ten.
It is very scalable, and on the cloud, it's even more scalable, potentially unlimited.
With load generators available, it is easily scalable to meet our needs.
The solution is highly scalable, which is its main feature.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Apache JMeter is stable but may face memory issues under high loads; effective in non-GUI mode with proper management.
Sentiment score
7.4
BlazeMeter is generally stable, with rapid bug resolution and reliability praised, but users suggest improvements for large test performance.
Sentiment score
7.7
<p>OpenText Core Performance Engineering is reliable with minor issues, quickly resolved by responsive R&amp;D and customer support teams.</p>
JMeter performs exceptionally well, especially in non-GUI mode, which supports high loads efficiently.
Several necessary features still need improvements, specifically in terms of reports and additional functionalities compared to other commercial tools.
I would rate the stability of BlazeMeter as eight out of ten, indicating that it is a stable and reliable solution.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is extremely stable for our use case.
 

Room For Improvement

Apache JMeter needs UI, reporting, and automation improvements to handle complex scenarios, large loads, and enhance overall usability.
BlazeMeter users seek improvements in pricing, functionality, integration, testing compatibility, scalability, and data management for a better experience.
OpenText Core Performance Engineering struggles with load patterns, reporting, network simulation, support speed, UI design, and agile integration.
Currently, we need to use multiple separate JMeter instances to simulate reductions in load, which isn't ideal.
The tool needs improvements related to client-side metrics, integrating with tools like YSlow or HTTP Watch, and enhancing mobile testing capabilities.
With BlazeMeter, you can view the results in real-time.
The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use.
The extra CSV random dataset plugin could be integrated with a simple checkbox in the existing CSV dataset plugin to read files randomly.
In-depth analysis tools found in the standalone LoadRunner analysis, such as graph merging and setting granularity, would be beneficial.
The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations.
I expect an improvement in the cloud location offering to better serve local applications, particularly to enhance testing accuracy for users in regions like Thailand.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users prefer Apache JMeter for its cost-effectiveness and flexibility in performance testing without licensing fees.
BlazeMeter offers competitive, flexible pricing with varied models, regional options, and custom contracts, integrating with tools like New Relic.
OpenText Core Performance Engineering provides flexible, usage-based pricing, supporting multiple protocols, justifying costs for enterprise-level performance testing.
Using JMeter helps us avoid additional costs for high-load testing since it is open-source and allows for unlimited virtual users at no extra cost.
It's a cost-effective solution.
Apache JMeter is completely free as it is open-source.
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud pricing is flexible, offering a more affordable solution compared to the more expensive on-premise LoadRunner.
It's delivering functionality, but we also use JMeter, which is free.
 

Valuable Features

Apache JMeter is praised for its user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, plugin support, and integration capabilities in performance testing.
BlazeMeter offers cloud-based load testing and integration with tools like JMeter, enhancing testing efficiency with user-friendly features.
OpenText Core Performance Engineering offers scalable, easy-to-use load testing with integration, automation, anomaly detection, and no maintenance required.
JMeter facilitates scripting capabilities, which include options for Groovy scripts.
It's useful for both the person conducting the test and the higher management, like project managers or senior executives, who may not know about the test.
Despite being open source, it offers features comparable to paid tools.
BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter.
BlazeMeter integrates with JMeter via multiple plugins, which streamlines performance testing, test monitoring, and report sharing.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud can scale in a cloud-based environment to support up to ten thousand concurrent users without capacity loss, which is not possible with on-premise solutions on personal machines.
Its LoadRunner functionality allows us to record a solution's networking protocol and replay them.
A significant difference is in its depth of analysis.
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Apache JMeter is 19.1%, down from 25.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BlazeMeter is 10.5%, down from 16.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) is 9.9%, up from 8.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Shashidhara Allalappa - PeerSpot reviewer
Extensive Protocol Support and Precise Reporting Elevate Testing, Though GUI Usability Needs Improvement
The GUI of Apache JMeter is not that user-friendly because we have many proxies, and we have to record through the proxy. With the limited SSL we have, we cannot use it for UI, which is a drawback. However, Apache JMeter is really good for REST APIs. I don't think there are any other areas other than the GUI that I would want improved about Apache JMeter; it is generally good and supports multiple protocols.
Manoj Raghavendra - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides global load simulations without managing infrastructure and offers built-in reporting features
BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for. The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use. Additionally, if there is no host in preferred locations such as some Asian or Middle Eastern countries, it might not be convenient to use BlazeMeter.
Jyoti Ranjan Behera - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly features facilitate monitoring while support could be more responsive
I am satisfied with OpenText LoadRunner Cloud as a product, but the ticket resolution time is concerning. The technical personnel are not able to fix issues quickly, which becomes problematic during critical situations. Compared to previous support, I notice that while experts previously resolved issues immediately, current experts take more time to resolve issues, which is the main challenge we are facing. They are now lacking regional support, which takes more time than it used to. My suggestions for improvements to OpenText LoadRunner Cloud would be to have specific experts available who can resolve issues more quickly, as delays can impact project timelines significantly.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Postman compare with Apache JMeter?
Postman lets you easily define variables, which then get updated automatically. This is a huge time-saver and makes p...
How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and perfo...
What do you like most about Apache JMeter?
I appreciate JMeter's simplicity and power for performance testing.
What do you like most about BlazeMeter?
It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BlazeMeter?
BlazeMeter's pricing depends on the type of account used. They offer multiple account types, with cost variations bas...
What needs improvement with BlazeMeter?
BlazeMeter could improve by consolidating features into existing plugins instead of developing separate plugins for s...
Do you recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
I absolutely recommend Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best performance testing...
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud?
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud pricing is flexible, offering a more affordable solution compared to the more expensive on-...
 

Also Known As

JMeter
JMeter Cloud
Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud, StormRunner Load, LoadRunner Cloud, and Micro Focus StormRunner Load
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Alfa Bank, N Brown Group, University of Copenhagen, McGraw-Hill, Cognizant
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.