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

BlazeMeter vs OpenText UFT One comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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
7.5
OpenText UFT One enhances efficiency and productivity with automation, AI capabilities, and supports achieving up to 300% ROI.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

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
6.2
OpenText UFT One's customer service is generally efficient but inconsistent, with varied experiences in support quality and response time.
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

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
7.2
OpenText UFT One is scalable, integrating with Jenkins, but success depends on licensing, automation quality, and deployment strategy.
BlazeMeter has the capability to simulate a higher number of users compared to JMeter standalone.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
 

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
6.6
OpenText UFT One generally exhibits stability, though some users report performance issues, often resolved through updates. Satisfaction remains high.
 

Room For Improvement

Users desire improved pricing, efficiency, integration, documentation, reporting, customization, access control, and enhanced support for testing and setup.
OpenText UFT One requires improvements in stability, compatibility, speed, memory use, object recognition, and integration with open-source tools.
The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
 

Setup Cost

BlazeMeter offers flexible pricing, including pay-as-you-go and annual fees, suitable for larger organizations but pricey for smaller ones.
OpenText UFT One licensing is costly, leading organizations to mix different license types and evaluate ROI against open-source alternatives.
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
 

Valuable Features

BlazeMeter offers scalable, user-friendly cloud-based performance testing with global capabilities and integration support, ideal for high-load tests.
OpenText UFT One provides versatile automation with cross-platform compatibility, easy use, robust testing, and integration with key technologies.
BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers.
 

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (3rd)
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
95
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd)
 

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 UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% 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.
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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.
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.