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

BlazeMeter vs OpenText LoadRunner Cloud comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

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
6.4
BlazeMeter improves testing, reduces costs, increases productivity, supports DevOps integration, and offers superior scalability for enhanced service delivery.
Sentiment score
7.3
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud offers cost savings and efficiency by reducing programming needs and infrastructure, enhancing development prioritization.
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
7.4
BlazeMeter's customer service is praised for knowledge and responsiveness, with room for improvement in response speed and availability.
Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud support is largely praised but faces occasional delays, with overall positive customer satisfaction and proactive service.
The customer service is not available 24/7, which affects its rating.
 

Scalability Issues

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 LoadRunner Cloud is praised for scalability, dynamic user load adjustment, ease of use, and flexibility, despite cost considerations.
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.
 

Stability Issues

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
HP SaaS web app is stable, with occasional bugs; users praise LoadRunner Cloud for reliability and good support.
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

BlazeMeter users seek improvements in pricing, functionality, integration, testing compatibility, scalability, and data management for a better experience.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud needs enhancements in customization, integration, real-time analytics, and documentation to improve user experience and compatibility.
The extra CSV random dataset plugin could be integrated with a simple checkbox in the existing CSV dataset plugin to read files randomly.
The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use.
In-depth analysis tools found in the standalone LoadRunner analysis, such as graph merging and setting granularity, would be beneficial.
 

Setup Cost

BlazeMeter offers competitive, flexible pricing with varied models, regional options, and custom contracts, integrating with tools like New Relic.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud offers flexible pricing and scalable testing, though some find it costly compared to alternatives like NeoLoad.
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
It's delivering functionality, but we also use JMeter, which is free.
 

Valuable Features

BlazeMeter offers cloud-based load testing and integration with tools like JMeter, enhancing testing efficiency with user-friendly features.
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud offers scalable, cloud-based performance testing with seamless integrations, real-time detection, and automated reporting for large-scale assessments.
BlazeMeter integrates with JMeter via multiple plugins, which streamlines performance testing, test monitoring, and report sharing.
BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter.
Its LoadRunner functionality allows us to record a solution's networking protocol and replay them.
A significant difference is in its depth of analysis.
 

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (8th), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
OpenText LoadRunner Cloud
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 12.6%, down from 15.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is 8.8%, down from 9.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Bala Maddu - PeerSpot reviewer
Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases
Overall, it's helped our ability to address test data challenges. The test data features on their own are very good, but version control test data isn't included yet. I think that's an area for improvement. We can update the test data on the cloud. That's a good feature. There's also test data management, which is good. [Runscope] doesn't have the test data management yet. Mock services do, and performance testing has it. We can do the same test through JMeter, validating the same criteria, but the feedback from [Runscope] is quite visible. We can see the request and the response, what data comes back, and add the validation criteria. We can manage the test environments and test data, but running the same API request for multiple test data is missing. We cloned the test cases multiple times to run it. They need to work on that. Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within [Runscope] would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes. In the future, I would like to see integrations with GitLab and external Git reports so we could have some sort of version control outside as well. There is no current mechanism for that. The ability to have direct imports of spoken API specifications instead of converting them to JSON would be nice. There are some features they could work on.
AlexLogan - PeerSpot reviewer
Has realistic scenario composition for performance tests and is highly scalable, but the user interface needs improvement
The solution generates traffic on the infrastructure, which resembles end users. Depending on the performance of the underlying infrastructure and nodes of the architecture, our company team can report on the scalability of applications. The solution performs two types of tests: user interface testing, which is implemented primarily in our organization for online banking, and the other one is API level testing for mobile banking. In terms of the feature set, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud is a market-leading application that has been around for 20 years. I have been working with the solution throughout the acquisition stages; the product used to be much better when it was primarily managed by Mercury. There are limited AI capabilities in the solution; when I was personally operating some smart scenarios using the feature of auto-scaling, I found it unsatisfying. I would recommend the product to others based on its feature set and the level of support. I would rate OpenText LoadRunner Cloud as seven out of ten. There are no glaring weaknesses in the product, and it's good enough for its core purpose.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
8%
 

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 requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
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 tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I find to...
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?
I would prefer it to be cheaper. On a scale of one to ten, the price is a five. It's delivering functionality, but we also use JMeter ( /products/apache-jmeter-reviews ), which is free.
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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 BlazeMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Cloud and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.