We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText Business Processing Testing based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"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 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."
"For me, the best part is that we can graphically see the test result at runtime. It helps us understand the behavior of the application during all stages of the test."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"The stability is good."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"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."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
Earn 20 points
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked 37th in Functional Testing Tools. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while OpenText Business Processing Testing is rated 7.8. 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 Business Processing Testing writes "Excellent usability, but the solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with their ALM tool". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas OpenText Business Processing Testing is most compared with .
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
