BlazeMeter vs. OpenText LoadRunner Professional

It is well suited for applications that are mission-critical or applications that can receive high traffic/transactions at unscheduled time periods. Using the load testing feature of BlazeMeter, we can test and ascertain the capacity of the application without the drawbacks of the usual Apache JMeter load testing which depends heavily on the host system from where the load testing is performed.

Incentivized

Micro Focus LoadRunner and its suite of tools, specifically VuGen works wonderfully for us for all web, http/https and web service calls. We've been able to build tests for near any scenario we need with relative ease. As long as we have crafted up requirements for our scenarios / scripts to managed scope, we've had high success working with scripting and data driving. Our main tests are web service calls - typically chained together to form a full scenario with transactions measuring the journey or a similar (measure along the way) journey through a browser. For web services we will use VuGen and browser we've shifted to Tru Client I have had little-to-no experience scripting against a thick client where a ui-driven test would be required. I know its possible but quite costly due to the need to run the actual desktop client to drive tests. We've been fortunate enough to leverage http calls to represent client traffic.

Incentivized

• BlazeMeter takes the .jmx script that teams had written for JMeter. The transition from JMeter to BlazeMeter was seamless.
• BlazeMeter offers its own cloud and hence we did not have to set it up on-premise.
• BlazeMeter hits our application from various geographic locations that simulates real life users.

Incentivized

• It can simulate multiple users at the same time and help understand the performance.
• It can generate excellent reports and give insights into application performance.
• It is a fast tool and does not take time to perform its functions.

Incentivized

• Blazemeter reporting is very basic and shallow. There is no way to drill down or correlate. I can get better reports by using JMeter for free.
• Blazemeter is very costly. Testing with volumes of more than 1K cu is expensive, and can be done for much cheaper if a company/team is willing to invest a bit of time to figure out how to use cloud instances and jmeter slaves, and to write a basic script to collect resulting xml output.

Incentivized

• HP LoadRunner with new patches and releases sometimes makes no longer support older version of various protocols like Citrix, which makes the task time-consuming when using older versions of LoadRunner for some of the cases. So it should support older version as well while upgrading.
• Configuring HP LoadRunner over the firewall involves lots of configuration and may be troublesome. So, there should be a script (power shell script for Windows or shell script for Linux users) to make it easy to use and with less pain.
• I would like to see the RunTime Viewer of Vugen in HPLoadRunner based on the browser I selected in the run-time configuration to make it feel more realistic as a real user.
• Licensing cost is very high when we need to perform a test on application for a specific group of users.

Incentivized

Easy to setup to do API Performance Testing. Dashboard to showcase results Capability to showcase runtime results

Incentivized

Customer service is not that great. It's difficult to get hold of someone if an issue is supposed to be addressed on an urgent basis. No online chat service readily available.

Incentivized

In comparison with Blazemeter the closes competitor is JMeter but it has disadvantages like it is not a tool that can be use as a collaborative tool and works locally in a computer, Blazemeter is in the web so different people can access and run tests or collaborate do add, edit or delete the existent scripts.

Incentivized

HP performance center stacks up very well for front end applications. Need more improvements for API performance testing.

Incentivized

• It helped positively by helping to identify the maximum capacity needed for high traffic periods
• Saved revenue by eliminating unwanted duplication of systems

Incentivized

• The scripts created with traditional web/http protocol are not robust thus re-scripting is required after most every code drop. Troubleshooting and fixing the issue takes more time therefore in most cases we do re-scripting to keep it simple and save time.
• In ideal world you would rather spend more time doing testing than scripting in that case mostly you could use an Ajax TruClient protocol. This type of script will only fail when an object in the application is removed or changed completely. This way of scripting will save you more time and helps you maintain the scripts with less re-work effort on a release basis. On the long run you will have a better ROI when you use Ajax TruClient protocol for scripting.

Incentivized