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

BlazeMeter vs OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 13, 2025

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 improved service quality, reduced churn, and enhanced productivity through integration, automation, and cost-efficient testing solutions.
Sentiment score
7.4
Users find OpenText Enterprise Performance invaluable for 200% ROI through enhanced reliability, bottleneck prevention, and significant cost savings.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.4
BlazeMeter support is praised for knowledgeable assistance, quick resolutions, and a global team, though response times vary.
Sentiment score
6.3
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's customer service is responsive and supportive, with mixed technical support experiences and noted improvements.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
BlazeMeter excels in cloud-based scalability and flexibility, with minor setup challenges but effective load distribution and user-friendliness.
Sentiment score
7.6
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise excels in scalability for performance testing, though licensing costs challenge larger user loads.
BlazeMeter has the capability to simulate a higher number of users compared to JMeter standalone.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.3
BlazeMeter is generally stable with minimal issues, reliable availability, swift bug resolution, and appreciated cloud-based infrastructure.
Sentiment score
7.4
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is praised for its stability and reliability, despite occasional infrastructure-related challenges and necessary maintenance.
 

Room For Improvement

Users desire improved pricing, efficiency, integration, documentation, reporting, customization, access control, and enhanced support for testing and setup.
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise needs improvements in scheduling, integration, interface, cloud support, reporting, browser compatibility, and technical support.
The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use.
 

Setup Cost

BlazeMeter offers flexible pricing, including pay-as-you-go and annual fees, suitable for larger organizations but pricey for smaller ones.
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise is often seen as pricey, with complexity in licensing and cost-saving options for users.
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
 

Valuable Features

BlazeMeter offers scalable, user-friendly cloud-based performance testing with global capabilities and integration support, ideal for high-load tests.
OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise excels in performance testing with user-friendly interface, robust scalability, and integration, offering high return on investment.
BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter.
 

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
OpenText Enterprise Perform...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 14.6%, up from 14.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) is 5.6%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance 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.
VictorHorescu - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to test almost every tool in the companies I enter and performs well in a distributed environment
It would be beneficial if LoadRunner could optimize resource usage, especially for protocols that require significant resources, like TrueClient, which interacts directly with the UI. If they could improve resource usage, like ingest or for the load generator, using less CPU or RAM memory, that would be great. That's where I have problems. In real time, when they ask for 5,000 or 10,000 concurrent users, I have to provision a lot of virtual machines to define this load. Then there are situations with certain platforms, especially document management platforms, where the technology is so weird that normal LoadRunner protocols cannot detect it. So, in that case, I have to use that special TruClient protocol. I have to use the TruClient protocol, which actually clicks on the object. Despite the SQL technology, I can still create a script and test for performance. So what I would appreciate a lot is if this protocol would require less resources on a normal virtual machine. I can use fewer concurrent users with TruClient protocols as opposed to almost one hundred with HTTP/HTML. As opposed to many more with HTTP/HTML from, let's say, JMeter. So, optimization at that level for resource consumption by OpenText would be much appreciated.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
841,004 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
 

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.
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
Now that LoadRunner integrates with Dynatrace and other monitoring tools, it simplifies the process of integration into a company, taking merely five minutes to set up. This ease of integration a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
In 2019, I was dealing with the costs of LoadRunner. While I don't remember the exact figures, JMeter being free and RPT being cheaper makes them attractive. The high cost of LoadRunner, in contras...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise?
While I don't see any issues with LoadRunner's functionality, the cost of the tool is a major factor. Many of my customers have had to switch to different tools due to the cost of LoadRunner, despi...
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Performance Center, HPE Performance Center
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Hexaware, British Sky Broadcasting, JetBlue
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
841,004 professionals have used our research since 2012.