You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.

BlazeMeter vs OpenText Silk Performer comparison

Perforce and OpenText are both solutions in the Load Testing Tools category. Perforce is ranked #4 with an average rating of 7.9, while OpenText is ranked #18. Perforce holds a 9.8% mindshare in LTT, compared to OpenText’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 94% of Perforce users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BlazeMeter

Read 49 BlazeMeter reviews

4,217 Views
3,584 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Performer

Read 1 OpenText Silk Performer review

253 Views
253 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

BlazeMeter

OpenText Silk Performer

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText Silk Performer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Load Testing Tools Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Load Testing Tools

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,785 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 Load Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Functional Testing Tools (10th), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (5th)

OpenText Silk Performer

Ranking in Load Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Load Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 9.8%, down from 16.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Performer is 1.0%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Load Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
BlazeMeter	9.8%
OpenText Silk Performer	1.0%
Other	89.2%

Load 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

Sunil Ramesh

Principal Software Architect at OpenText

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.

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 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 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."

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

"The user interface is good."

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

"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."

"With the help of the Mock Services, we are overcoming everything. Wherever we are facing issues, whether they will be long term or temporary, by implementing the Mock Services we can bypass the faulty components that are not needed for our particular testing."

"The stability is good."

More BlazeMeter pros

"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."

Cons

"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."

"The scalability features still need improvement."

"BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for."

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

"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."

"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."

"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."

"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."

More BlazeMeter cons

"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good."

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

"I rate the product's price two on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. The solution is not expensive."

"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 solution is free and open source."

"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."

More BlazeMeter pricing and cost advice

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

15%

Retailer

Manufacturing Company

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	18
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	22

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 ...

See all answers

What do you like most about BlazeMeter?

It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs BlazeMeter

Compared 41% of the time

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 17% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs BlazeMeter

Compared 16% of the time

k6 Open Source vs BlazeMeter

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 6% of the time

More BlazeMeter Competitors

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs OpenText Silk Performer

Compared 43% of the time

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs OpenText Silk Performer

Compared 31% of the time

Apache JMeter vs OpenText Silk Performer

Compared 26% of the time

More OpenText Silk Performer Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BlazeMeter

October 2025

Download BlazeMeter product report

Buyer's Guide

Load Testing Tools

September 2025

Download OpenText Silk Performer product report

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud

Micro Focus Silk Performer, Silk Performer

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

Test Asset reusability for performance monitoring
Silk Performer can considerably speed up testing cycles by allowing you to reuse your existing functional tests. Use Silk Test® or Selenium for performance testing and synthetic monitoring purposes as well.

Cloud in
Integrated scalability from the Cloud
Silk Performer load testing enables your applications for 'battle readiness' that can withstand massive, global usage. Easily simulate any size peak-load and avoid costly investments in stress testing hardware and setup.

Retina scan
Monitor user experience with advanced diagnostics
Detect, isolate, and resolve performance issues with effective end-to-end diagnostics. Design scripts to uncover errors from the user’s perspective and analyze results with easy to read visual reporting.

Monitor
A leading web support for load and stress testing
Validate performance of your most complex web applications and efficiently create comprehensive tests that reflect real world conditions and usage patterns.

Comprehensive mobile performance testing
Lower the cost and complexity of testing mobile web and mobile native applications at scale. Silk Performer provides a complete set of profiles for all popular mobile devices, application types, and connection speeds.

OpenText

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub

University of Colorado, Medidata, Monash University

Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Load 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.