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

BlazeMeter vs OpenText Silk Performer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Functional Testing Tools (9th), API Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
OpenText Silk Performer
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 12.9%, down from 15.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.0%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Load 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.
SR
Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy
In terms of areas of improvement, I would say the Silk Performance Explorer tool, which is used for monitoring and analysis, can be improved because that's where we spend most of our time when we're analyzing the test data. Any enhancements that can be provided in the monitoring sphere would be useful. When you have a large amount of data the tool struggles with it and will sometimes crash, or there may be issues with too many metrics being collected when running a test. The interface for the scripting could be more feature-rich. Integration with tools like Prometheus or Grafana where we can visualize the data would be great. As things stand, we have to use one monitoring tool to visualize data and another for visualizing the test metrics. Integration would enable us to see the metrics from Silk and correlate that with the metrics from other servers or other processes we're monitoring. It would save having to look at Silk data and server metrics separately. It's the way things are going with newer tools. I think the solution is being phased out by Micro Focus and their emphasis is focused more on LoadRunner. We haven't seen much development in the last few years.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The user interface is good."
"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."
"BlazeMeter has provided me with a vast cloud platform to run JMeter script files, eliminating the need for storage or load providers."
"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 solution’s most valuable feature is the dashboard."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
 

Cons

"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"The pricing is high"
"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 seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good."
"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"The product isn't cheap, but it isn't the most expensive on the market. During our proof of concept, we discovered that you get what you pay for; we found a cheaper solution we tested to be full of bugs. Therefore, we are willing to pay the higher price tag for the quality BlazeMeter offers."
"The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."
"The overall product is less costly than our past solutions, so we've absolutely saved money."
"It is an averagely priced product."
"The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Load Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
853,271 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
29%
Computer Software Company
13%
Retailer
6%
Sports Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, Perforce and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: May 2025.
853,271 professionals have used our research since 2012.