We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, and OpenText LoadRunner Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools.
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results."
"The solution can scale."
"The most valuable feature is having load generators in countries where we don’t have access to them."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the Vuser license; it allows us to reduce the cost as per requirement."
"The most valuable feature is that we do not have to accommodate the load-testing infrastructure in our own data center."
"The usability and ability to integrate with other solutions is quite good. When I use it in on Azure, then Red Hat is the most likely solution I use. When I use AWS, then I tend to use Lambda functions. In either case, it works well and you can use it either way."
"The solution is easy to use."
"One of LoadRunner's standout features is its extensive support for various TechStacks and protocols."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to configure browser settings for different operating systems and on different versions without the need to install every single version on each machine and to manage them."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are the separate module for scripting, execution analysis, and integration with a lot of new things pipeline areas. They keep updating their releases. Recently, they have released different versions, such as the professional and enterprise. They're coming up with new features which are good."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"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."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"One area of improvement in the software's support is the replaying of captured data within the development environment. It would be beneficial if the replay feature could accurately mimic what the actual application is doing for better analysis and testing."
"I don't know of any features that should be added. The solution isn't lacking anything at this point."
"I would like for there to be better integration with other tools so that when you do load testing you can also do a security check."
"CI/CD integration could be a little bit better. When there's a test and if you see that there are high response times in the test itself, it would be great to be able to send an alert. It would give a heads-up to the architect community or ops community."
"It should have a feature to report with a 99.9 percentile success rate."
"Reporting and analysis need improvement. Compared to the old school LoadRunner Windows application, the reporting and analysis are mediocre in LoadRunner Cloud."
"Improvements to the reporting would be good."
"There is a steep learning curve for the product, too."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"The product is pretty heavy and should be more lightweight."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"We'd like the solution to be a bit more user-friendly."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The solution must be more user-friendly."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
