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
3rd
Ranking in Load Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
49
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (8th), API Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
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 April 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 14.0%, down from 15.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 13.0%, down from 14.5% 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

"BlazeMeter has provided me with a vast cloud platform to run JMeter script files, eliminating the need for storage or load providers."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"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 baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"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 most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The tool's most valuable features are scripting and automation."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"Its variety of testing tools for different applications is of great benefit, as well as its integration capabilities with other testing and monitoring solutions."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
 

Cons

"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."
"The scanning capability needs 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."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
"BlazeMeter does not provide integration with the Aternity tool."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"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."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"Compared to some other vendors, there is a lack of community support."
"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."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"Lacks specific level monitoring."
 

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."
"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution."
"The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs."
"My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product."
"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."
"It is an averagely priced product."
"The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable."
"It is reasonable. We pay the cost, but we have everything. We have a big set of licenses for SAP and other applications. We have all kinds of licenses."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"This is not a cheap product."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,190 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
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
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 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: April 2025.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.