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

BlazeMeter vs OpenText Business Processing Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 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
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
OpenText Business Processin...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
39th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 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 Business Processing Testing is 0.1%, up from 0.1% 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.
it_user309363 - PeerSpot reviewer
We use UFT for the scalability and cross-technology diversity, UFT API for the web-service and database related testing, and HP BPT for the modular testing.
We can now take test automation through the entire business process -- testing web service availability before automated test packs start, sending and retrieving data via web-services and control of all web service testing in a single tool, along with the GUI testing of business processes across a multitude of platforms from java web through to AS400 green screen terminal apps. BPT allows you to manage all the test resources and artifacts inside of Quality Center, including all data and test flows, and to have a single point for reporting. To give you an example, we built a series of tests that would firstly fire off web-service calls to ensure the required services were running. We would then do data creation using a series of Excel VB functions (called by UFT through BPT), and then launch into GUI testing of complex webmethods Java web portals to take a business process through a series of screens, capture required data and test screen functionality, write all runtime data back to QC datasets, then call the data later in the BPT test to validate it across database checks using HP UFT API, build and execute SQL queries, and finally validate information for accounting purposes of data sitting on AS400 or payment databases.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"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."
"The user interface is good."
"One key advantage of using BlazeMeter is that it does not require me to manage my own infrastructure."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The stability is good."
"It is focused on concurrency testing, which has been especially beneficial for us. Their previous experiences had caused major setbacks."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
 

Cons

"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"The scalability features still need improvement."
"The support could be better."
"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."
"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."
"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"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."
"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 pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs."
"The solution is free and open source."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
16%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
No data available
 

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Migros Bank AG
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Business Processing Testing and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.