No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Apache JMeter vs OpenText Silk Performer comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apache JMeter
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th)
OpenText Silk Performer
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Apache JMeter is 8.6%, down from 16.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.5%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Apache JMeter8.6%
OpenText Silk Performer1.5%
Other89.9%
Load Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

TusharShankar - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Manager at Synechron
Performance testing has become central and reporting has provided clear insights for our teams
We do have command prompt related or CLI functionality with Apache JMeter, so it is easier. However, since it is open source, much work has not been put into the GUI part. The GUI could definitely be enhanced. One drawback which I can see when I compare it with other tools is the amount of cache that it uses, the memory that it uses. It becomes very difficult to work with when we have a lot of requests that need to be processed. Anything more than 10,000 requests becomes a bit of an unfavorable task when using Apache JMeter altogether. Otherwise, it does help anyone who is starting off with performance testing.
SR
Principal Software Architect at OpenText
Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy
In terms of areas of improvement, I would say the Silk Performance Explorer tool, which is used for monitoring and analysis, can be improved because that's where we spend most of our time when we're analyzing the test data. Any enhancements that can be provided in the monitoring sphere would be useful. When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test. The interface for the scripting could be more feature-rich. Integration with tools like Prometheus or Grafana where we can visualize the data would be great. As things stand, we have to use one monitoring tool to visualize data and another for visualizing the test metrics. Integration would enable us to see the metrics from Silk and correlate that with the metrics from other servers or other processes we're monitoring. It would save having to look at Silk data and server metrics separately. It's the way things are going with newer tools. I think the solution is being phased out by Micro Focus and their emphasis is focused more on LoadRunner. We haven't seen much development in the last few years.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product helps me get the expected performance from applications or servers and reduces costs. It also enhances the performance of the services and helped them reach their ultimate capacity."
"The solution helps by detecting bottlenecks."
"This is a cost-effective tool, which provides people the ability to do POCs without worrying about costs."
"I like the ease of using JMeter, as it can be downloaded and used to record and run load tests, and it can record, run and create reports easily without the need to have licenses, complex installations and paid support."
"When someone in our organization wants to test web applications, they use Apache JMeter since they face no hurdles while using the solution."
"Apache JMeter is quite flexible and it is also well distributed."
"We had some challenges testing HTTP/2 APIs, which are becoming more prevalent with advancements like 5G. So, we added another plugin to help with HTTP/2 API load testing. Apache JMeter, with additional plugins, now supports HTTP/2, which is critical as everyone moves from HTTP/1 to HTTP/2."
"It is very quick and user-friendly."
"We haven't used Silk on any project where it hasn't been able to support whatever we have needed."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
 

Cons

"Running JMeter in GUI mode uses a lot of memory, which means we need to switch to a non-GUI mode when using a heavy load."
"The solution is not user-friendly, there is no framework for autocorrelation or parameterization."
"In this tool, automation in general is almost non-existent. Everything is done manually."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"RegEx Extractor needs improvement. It's a headache for many people."
"The solution could use some sort of educational features to offer tips and hints to help users navigate it better. They should improve the manuals and help files."
"The solution's setup could be easier and security could be improved to minimize vulnerabilities."
"The UI needs some work. The first time I used JMeter, I couldn't record the full scenario to mimic the user experience. Since then, they have introduced some plugins and a third-party tool called BlazeMeter."
"When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"When comparing the price with Load Runner, and if the cost is an issue then JMeter is a better choice"
"The solution is open source."
"JMeter is open source, so there are no licensing costs associated with it."
"This is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs associated with it."
"No licensing is required as it is a free, open-source tool."
"This is an open-source product."
"This is an open-source solution, so there are no licensing costs involved."
"This is an open-source solution, and there are no fees."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
914,351 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise23
Large Enterprise62
No data available
 

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 processes very efficient. We can also export the test cases we create and share t...
How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Apache JMeter?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that the cost and license are free because Apache JMeter is open source.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

JMeter
Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AOL, Orbitz, Innopath Software, PrepMe, Sapient, Corporate Express Australia, CSIRO, Ephibian, Talis, DATACOM, ALALOOP, eFusion, Panter, Sourcepole, University of Western Cape
University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: September 2026.
914,351 professionals have used our research since 2012.