Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BlazeMeter vs OpenText UFT One 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.4
BlazeMeter improves testing, reduces costs, increases productivity, supports DevOps integration, and offers superior scalability for enhanced service delivery.
Sentiment score
7.5
OpenText UFT One offers over 300% ROI by enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and supporting diverse systems through AI capabilities.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
BlazeMeter's customer service is praised for knowledge and responsiveness, with room for improvement in response speed and availability.
Sentiment score
6.2
Users report varied OpenText UFT One support experiences, noting quick responses but sometimes slow resolutions, especially for complex issues.
The customer service is not available 24/7, which affects its rating.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
BlazeMeter is praised for scalable performance to thousands of users, though some seek enhanced dynamic user features.
Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT One scales well with proper licensing management, though execution speed and large test volumes may pose challenges.
BlazeMeter has the capability to simulate a higher number of users compared to JMeter standalone.
BlazeMeter is quite scalable, and I rate its scalability as nine out of ten.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
BlazeMeter is generally stable, with rapid bug resolution and reliability praised, but users suggest improvements for large test performance.
Sentiment score
6.5
Users have mixed opinions on OpenText UFT One's stability, noting issues with crashing and updates affecting performance.
I would rate the stability of BlazeMeter as eight out of ten, indicating that it is a stable and reliable solution.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
 

Room For Improvement

BlazeMeter users seek improvements in pricing, functionality, integration, testing compatibility, scalability, and data management for a better experience.
OpenText UFT One needs performance and stability improvements, enhanced browser compatibility, intuitive interface, and better technical support.
The extra CSV random dataset plugin could be integrated with a simple checkbox in the existing CSV dataset plugin to read files randomly.
The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

BlazeMeter offers competitive, flexible pricing with varied models, regional options, and custom contracts, integrating with tools like New Relic.
OpenText UFT One, though pricey, offers robust automation features and integration, making it valuable for enterprises needing extensive capabilities.
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
 

Valuable Features

BlazeMeter offers cloud-based load testing and integration with tools like JMeter, enhancing testing efficiency with user-friendly features.
OpenText UFT One provides comprehensive cross-technology testing automation with strong compatibility, integration, and innovative AI testing capabilities.
BlazeMeter integrates with JMeter via multiple plugins, which streamlines performance testing, test monitoring, and report sharing.
BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
 

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 0.6%, down from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.9%, up from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Bala Maddu - PeerSpot reviewer
Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases
Overall, it's helped our ability to address test data challenges. The test data features on their own are very good, but version control test data isn't included yet. I think that's an area for improvement. We can update the test data on the cloud. That's a good feature. There's also test data management, which is good. [Runscope] doesn't have the test data management yet. Mock services do, and performance testing has it. We can do the same test through JMeter, validating the same criteria, but the feedback from [Runscope] is quite visible. We can see the request and the response, what data comes back, and add the validation criteria. We can manage the test environments and test data, but running the same API request for multiple test data is missing. We cloned the test cases multiple times to run it. They need to work on that. 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. In the future, I would like to see integrations with GitLab and external Git reports so we could have some sort of version control outside as well. There is no current mechanism for that. The ability to have direct imports of spoken API specifications instead of converting them to JSON would be nice. There are some features they could work on.
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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 ...
What do you like most about BlazeMeter?
It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BlazeMeter?
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,963 professionals have used our research since 2012.