BlazeMeter vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Perforce and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Perforce is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. Perforce holds a 0.6% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 94% of Perforce users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BlazeMeter

Read 49 BlazeMeter reviews

4,544 Views
409 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

968 Views
726 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

BlazeMeter

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and BlazeMeter compete in the software testing solutions category. BlazeMeter seems to have an advantage in the realm of performance testing due to its support for continuous testing, while OpenText Silk Test stands out in functional testing with its detailed scripting capabilities.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers comprehensive automated regression and cross-browser testing capabilities, integration with various development environments, and a robust system for test cases and application states. BlazeMeter provides exceptional load testing tools, capable of simulating large-scale user interactions globally, and simplifies performance testing through its cloud-based system.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could improve by enhancing its integration with newer cloud technologies, offering more dynamic deployment options, and expanding support for non-Windows environments. BlazeMeter can enhance its platform by providing more detailed debugging tools, improving real-time responsiveness during tests, and refining API monitoring features for more precise feedback.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test has a straightforward deployment model, supported by comprehensive setup documentation and responsive customer service. In contrast, BlazeMeter offers a cloud-based deployment model that seamlessly integrates into CI/CD pipelines, complemented by an active user community and professional assistance.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test may involve higher initial setup costs but promises a significant return on investment through its stable testing capabilities. On the other hand, BlazeMeter's tiered, scalable pricing structure suits organizations aiming for rapid and flexible testing solutions, potentially offering a quicker ROI compared to more traditional solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Silk Test

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 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

10th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

5th

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 (7th)

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 0.6%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.0%, down from 1.1% 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

SrinivasPakala

Director Consulting Expert at Cgi Deutschland KG

Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available

While we are performance testing the engineering key, we need to come up with load strategies to commence the test. We'll help to monitor the test, and afterward, we'll help to make all the outcomes, and if they are new, we'll do lots and lots of interpretation and analysis across various servers, to look at response times, and impact. For example, whatever the observations we had during the test, we need to implement it. We'll have to help to catch what exactly is the issues were, and we'll help to see how they can be reduced. Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are. The solution needs better monitoring, especially of CPU.

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 product's most valuable features include its cloud-based nature, which allows us to conduct tests without relying on local resources."

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

"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."

"The user interface is good."

"One key advantage of using BlazeMeter is that it does not require me to manage my own infrastructure."

"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 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."

"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."

More BlazeMeter pros

"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."

"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."

"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."

Cons

"Having more options for customization would be helpful."

"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."

"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 customer service is not available 24/7, which affects its rating. I would rate it as a seven because they respond once they are available."

"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 scanning capability needs improvement."

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

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

More BlazeMeter cons

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."

"The pricing could be improved."

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The product pricing is reasonable."

"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 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."

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

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

"My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product."

More BlazeMeter pricing and cost advice

"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."

"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."

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

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user337059

Performance Test Consultant at a government with 10,001+ employees

Nov 5, 2015

We can view tests at run time, which has helped us to execute tests from different time zones. However, sometimes the Book Time Slot option hangs if I cancel any test or time slot.

The most valuable features to us are-- Ease of uploading the scripts, and Script maintenance Multiple users from different locations can login. We can view tests at run time, which has helped us to execute tests from different time zones. Sometimes the Book Time Slot option hangs if I cancel…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Retailer

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 ...

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

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Silk Test?

The pricing depends on the license used. The pricing is similar to others in the market.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Silk Test?

The pricing could be improved.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Silk Test?

The product is used for manual, functional, and performance testing. I'm using the tool for loading data into ERP systems.

See all answers

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs BlazeMeter

Compared 41% of the time

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs BlazeMeter

Compared 15% of the time

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 5% of the time

k6 Open Source vs BlazeMeter

Compared 5% of the time

More BlazeMeter Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 38% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 20% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BlazeMeter

August 2025

Download BlazeMeter product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

August 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

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

SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.

OpenText

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies

Buyer's Guide

BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Silk Test

July 2025

Free Report: BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Silk Test

Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Silk Test report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional 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.