No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

BlazeMeter vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th), Load Testing Tools (5th), API Testing Tools (10th)
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
18th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 2.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.0%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
BlazeMeter2.0%
OpenText Silk Test2.0%
Other96.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Nirav Patel - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior QA Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Performance testing for peak retail events has become faster and delivers reliable user load insights
BlazeMeter offers numerous features, but the ones that stand out to me include its ease of use, predefined configurations for high-scale performance testing that can be executed quickly, AI-powered testing, scriptless testing, and accurate API testing with an auto-correction plugin to ensure the accuracy of the tests performed. While I cannot pinpoint a single favorite feature, I find myself using parallel execution frequently because this feature allows multiple tests to be run at once, greatly enhancing my workflow. BlazeMeter effectively handles dependency in microservice architecture, for example, linking one API to another to manage response flows, such as the login and registration APIs, which flows efficiently through BlazeMeter. BlazeMeter has positively impacted my organization by reducing the time required for testing due to its robust features that yield efficient results. Unlike JMeter, which has limitations on user simulations, BlazeMeter allows me to test any number of users, helping my e-commerce website manage unpredictable traffic loads effectively while delivering accurate results I can trust to improve my systems.
JG
Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura
Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles
The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Using this product has improved the way our organization does testing."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"I also evaluated JMeter and LoadRunner but I prefer BlazeMeter because of the speed and because it's easier to use."
"BlazeMeter opened up performance testing for us, making teams more self-sufficient and opening up the practice to the whole enterprise, which is the most significant benefit."
"The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based nature, which allows us to conduct tests without relying on local resources."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"Not many performance Testing tool provides end to end response times for scripts running on the page, this tool is capable of providing end to end real time browser response times."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting, as you get a single frame of reporting across all the various tests and the program is very user-friendly."
"The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation."
"The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"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."
"It speeds up testing efforts."
 

Cons

"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"Occasionally, we have long wait times or trouble starting tests."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"The scalability features still need improvement."
"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."
"The ability to run node.js scripts needs to improve."
"The product could improve in areas such as mobile testing and the integration of AI analytics."
"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help."
"Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git."
"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."
"The browser based testing needs to be improved."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Need to improve online documentation, community and forums to share issues encountered and solutions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an averagely priced product."
"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product."
"The overall product is less costly than our past solutions, so we've absolutely saved money."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user337059 - PeerSpot reviewer
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…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Construction Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise23
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BlazeMeter?
Regarding pricing, it is favorable compared to other tools, providing good value. The licensing is flexible, with options for one or two-year terms based on user requirements, and BlazeMeter occasi...
What needs improvement with BlazeMeter?
BlazeMeter meets my needs very well, but an area for improvement would be the ability to execute multiple projects simultaneously. I often have several projects that require performance testing, an...
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.
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.
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.