We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText UFT Developer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"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 most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"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."
"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."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"The pricing could be improved."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto, whereas OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive. See our BlazeMeter vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.
