We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"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."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
BlazeMeter is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 41 reviews while OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. 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 One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite. See our BlazeMeter vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
