OpenText UFT One and BlazeMeter compete in the software testing tools category. BlazeMeter has the upper hand due to its cloud-based flexibility and strong performance testing capabilities.
Features: OpenText UFT One supports a wide range of environments and browsers, provides robust GUI and API testing capabilities, and integrates well with frameworks like LeanFT. BlazeMeter excels in performance testing with cloud-based load testing, leveraging multiple load generators across the globe, and integrates with open-source tools like JMeter.
Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One may have lower performance and high resource consumption, struggles with newer programming languages, and needs better browser support and AI features. BlazeMeter could offer more cost-effective solutions, improve data-driven testing support, and better integrate with APM and Selenium tools.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One is typically deployed on-premises, requiring significant setup and maintenance, while BlazeMeter's flexible deployment across public, hybrid, and private clouds makes it more accessible. Customer service for OpenText is slower with less intuitive resources, whereas BlazeMeter's support is adequate but can be challenged by complex issues.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is seen as expensive with a complex licensing model, justified by its capabilities in large enterprises. BlazeMeter offers a flexible cost structure, which still appears high to some users. Both solutions improve ROI with strategic usage, with OpenText saving time on repetitive tasks and BlazeMeter enhancing testing efficiency through scalability.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BlazeMeter ensures delivery of high-performance software by enabling DevOps teams to quickly and easily run open-source-based performance tests against any mobile app, website or API at massive scale to validate performance at every stage of software delivery.
The rapidly growing BlazeMeter community has more than 100,000 developers and includes prominent global brands such as Adobe, Atlassian, Gap, NBC Universal, Pfizer and Walmart as customers. Founded in 2011, the company is headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif., with its research and development in Tel Aviv.
Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.
Read white paper
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.