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."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."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"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."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"OpenText LoadRunner Cloud eliminates the need for our own testing infrastructure when running tests."
"It's fast, easy to use, has a user-friendly UI, and you can split users."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"The solution is easy to use."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"Keeping up with DevOps, thus the best feature of StormRunner is that we don't have to build and maintain infrastructure anymore."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"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 reporting capabilities could be improved."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"Scriptless automation is an area that can be improved."
"We did have some challenges with the initial implementation."
"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."
"Its scripting features need improvement."
"Their documentation is not technical enough for us. We would like to have much deeper technical documentation so that we can self-serve without constantly having to go back to them and ask."
"One area for improvement in LoadRunner Cloud, especially for agile models, is its limited support for functional testing alongside its robust non-functional testing capabilities."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 40 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, Tricentis Flood and Perfecto, whereas OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad, 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.