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

BlazeMeter vs OpenText LoadRunner Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 6, 2025

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 Performance Testing Tools
4th
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 LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 14.6%, up from 13.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 12.8%, down from 15.1% 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.
HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution’s most valuable feature is the dashboard."
"One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"Running from the cloud with load distribution, exhibiting load from different geo-regions. Generating the load from different cloud regions is the best feature."
"The user interface is good."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"One key advantage of using BlazeMeter is that it does not require me to manage my own infrastructure."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"It has features for recording. The best feature with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is that there is very little bottleneck or overhead issues. With LoadRunner, you can spawn 2000 contributions for one machine."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"I am impressed with the tool's correlation function."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
 

Cons

"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"The support could be better."
"The scalability features still need improvement."
"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."
"BlazeMeter does not provide integration with the Aternity tool."
"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."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"The initial start-up of Micro Focus LoadRunner could be improved. When we add 20 or 30 scripts, the refresh is completed one by one. I would like to be able to select all the script at one time, so it can be completed in a single click, reducing the time required."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
"The solution is free and open source."
"The overall product is less costly than our past solutions, so we've absolutely saved money."
"When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good."
"The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"The licensing model is complex. You have to pick up the protocol and the number of concurrent users, and then select the level of concurrent users. For example, there would be one price for 100 to 500 users and another for 500 to 2000 users. If you choose two protocols, then you will have to pay twice the amount depending on the number of concurrent users."
"The licensing of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. If it can be easier and the concurrent run can be included with the current total number of users, it would be helpful."
"The solution's pricing is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
838,640 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
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's pricing is competitive but can be negotiable.
What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
838,640 professionals have used our research since 2012.