BlazeMeter vs OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise comparison

"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."

"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."

"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."

"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."

"It is focused on concurrency testing, which has been especially beneficial for us. Their previous experiences had caused major setbacks."

"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."

"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."

"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."

"LoadRunner Enterprise's best feature is the detailed reporting structure."

"It allows you to work out how well you are doing project-wise because you see the number of scripts done, the number of tests run, and whether you have mapped all your requirements to it."

"Our main use case for the product was load and stress testing. It helped us put the system under stress by injecting in multiple users, such as 5,000 users."

"It's a very powerful tool."

"The most valuable feature is the Vuser protocols."

"Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is easy to use and has flexibility that allows it to be used on a variety of applications."

"LoadRunner's UI is project-convenient, allowing easier simulation of real-time scenarios and producing comprehensive reports that are effortless to read."

"This product is better oriented to large, enterprise-oriented organizations."

"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."

"The scalability features still need improvement."

"The pricing is high"

"Having more options for customization would be helpful."

"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."

"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."

"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."

"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."

"We are expecting more flexible to use Jenkins in continuous integration going forward."

"A room for improvement in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise is that it should take multiple exhibitions for a particular scenario and have automatic trending for that. This will be a very useful feature that lets users look into how many exhibitions happened for the scenario and their performance, and you should be able to see the data within the Performance Center dashboard. For example, there's one scenario I'm focusing on multiple times in a month, and if I check five times, there's no way for me to see the trend and find out how it went with those five exhibitions. It would be great if the Performance Center has a view of all five exhibitions, particularly transaction by transaction, and how they happened. If Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise shows you the time trends, information about one exhibition to another, and how each performed, it'll be an immense feature, and that should be visible to every user. Reporting should be simpler in Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise. If I did a scenario with one exhibition now, and I did that scenario again, then I should be able to schedule that scenario for the exhibition, and if that scenario is executed multiple times, there should be the option to turn it into a single view that shows you all the transactions, how the performance was, what the trend graph is for a particular time, etc."

"The debugging feature needs to include graphs."

"Integration can be tricky during the setup process."

"They need to focus on minimizing the cost."

"The solution is a very expensive tool when compared with other tools."

"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."

"The process of upgrading LoadRunner can be difficult and time-consuming."

"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."

"The product pricing is reasonable."

"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution."

"The product isn't cheap, but it isn't the most expensive on the market. During our proof of concept, we discovered that you get what you pay for; we found a cheaper solution we tested to be full of bugs. Therefore, we are willing to pay the higher price tag for the quality BlazeMeter offers."

"The overall product is less costly than our past solutions, so we've absolutely saved money."

"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."

"When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good."

"We purchased the license via SAP."

"LoadRunner Enterprise's price is high."

"They have a much more practical pricing model now."

"I give the cost a one out of ten."

"We used the Professional version and then moved to the enterprise version. We have subscribed to 1000 user licenses. The tool will be super expensive if we take up 5,000 user licenses. We have to limit ourselves on testing."

"There is an ROI. What LoadRunner does, is it prevents failures when there are many, many concurrent users in the systems of a company."

"The prices would differ depending on the number of licenses you need. I wouldn't maybe compare it to any other tools. I rate the price as seven out of ten."

"It is a bit expensive when compared with other tools."