BlazeMeter vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web comparison

BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 peers since 2012

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

BlazeMeter

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

9th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (6th)

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Manoj Raghavendra

Director at SMKR Consultancy LLP

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.

Read full review

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."

"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."

"There is a repository of all the scripts that we have created. You can go back and compare tests to see what the tests looked like. If I want to go and compare something with whatever happened six months or one year back, I can do that."

"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."

"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."

"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."

"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."

"Running from the cloud with load distribution, exhibiting load from different geo-regions. Generating the load from different cloud regions is the best feature."

More BlazeMeter pros

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"The product is easy to use."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

Cons

"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."

"The support could be better."

"Sometimes, when we execute tests, the results calculated by BlazeMeter, specifically the response times for failed transactions, are incorrect."

"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."

"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."

"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."

"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."

"The product could improve in areas such as mobile testing and the integration of AI analytics."

More BlazeMeter cons

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."

"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution."

"The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs."

"The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."

"The solution is free and open source."

"It's consumption-based pricing but with a ceiling. They're called CVUs, or consumption variable units. We can use API testing, GUI testing, and test data, but everything gets converted into CVUs, so we are free to use the platform in its entirety without getting bogged down by a license for certain testing areas. We know for sure how much we are going to spend."

"The product pricing is reasonable."

"The overall product is less costly than our past solutions, so we've absolutely saved money."

More BlazeMeter pricing and cost advice

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"The product could be more affordable."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

18%

Non Profit

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

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 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 based on features accessible under each account.

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

Apache JMeter vs BlazeMeter

Comparisons

Compared 48% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs BlazeMeter

Compared 15% of the time

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 4% of the time

k6 Open Source vs BlazeMeter

Compared 3% of the time

More BlazeMeter Competitors

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 18% of the time

Perfecto vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 16% of the time

BrowserStack vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 14% of the time

Appium vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 12% of the time

AWS Device Farm vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 12% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Competitors

Product Reports

BlazeMeter

Download BlazeMeter product report

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web product report

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web report

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

Overview

BlazeMeter ensures delivery of high-performance software by enabling DevOps teams to quickly and easily run open-source-based performance tests against any mobile app, website or API at massive scale to validate performance at every stage of software delivery.

The rapidly growing BlazeMeter community has more than 100,000 developers and includes prominent global brands such as Adobe, Atlassian, Gap, NBC Universal, Pfizer and Walmart as customers. Founded in 2011, the company is headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif., with its research and development in Tel Aviv.

Perforce

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers integration with HPE and non-HPE tools, real device testing, and device management. It supports real-time analytics and multi-platform testing, ensuring traceability and flexibility with decentralized devices.

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is designed to enhance testing efficiency for mobile and desktop applications by allowing ease of integration with different testing environments. It features real-time analytics, supports automated device management, and provides the flexibility of decentralized testing on real devices. With a focus on robust traceability, it stands out as a comprehensive choice for optimizing software development life cycles, especially notable for its ability to support multiple devices simultaneously and strategic scaling through network virtualization and AWS device farm.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing Lab?

Ease of Use: Intuitive interface facilitating user engagement.
Integration: Compatible with HPE and non-HPE tools for improved workflow.
Real Device Testing: Ensures testing on actual devices for accurate results.
Automation: Advanced capabilities streamline repetitive testing.
Device Management: Flexible management of decentralized devices.
Multi-Platform Support: Simultaneous testing across various platforms.
Traceability: Strong application delivery traceability for robust tracking.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Scalability: Ability to handle multiple devices and scale as needed.
Flexibility: Deployment options include both on-premises and cloud-based solutions.
Real-Time Analytics: Provides actionable insights for data-driven decisions.
Enhanced Performance: Optimizes the software development lifecycle.
Comprehensive Testing: Facilitates thorough functional and performance testing.

Financial services companies utilize OpenText Functional Testing Lab for optimizing mobile solutions and applications, ensuring a streamlined integration into their Application Lifecycle Management and Unified Functional Testing processes. It aids in functional and performance testing, adapting to both on-premises and cloud deployments to suit industry-specific demands.

OpenText

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web