We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and SmartBear LoadNinja based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This solution is very user-friendly, and allows for a lot of data capture when testing."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"The most valuable feature of Apache JMeter is its popularity. It is the best open-source tool with all the features needed."
"It is very quick and user-friendly."
"JMeter is user-friendly, and that's a notable advantage of JVTech. It's straightforward and easy to use, unlike some other load testing tools, making it very easy to understand."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jenkins and the reporting."
"User-friendly and open source."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
"If JMeter could provide a web version of editing, that would be good."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner we can go from the UI and we can configure it. There is no such feature in Apache JMeter. There should be UI-based recording history or logs."
"The user interface is a little bit tricky."
"The UI has room for improvement."
"Considering the kinds of tests we are performing here, where we launch several tests at the same time as a batch request, JMeter is not the best tool for the job. Those kinds of things could be done easily with other tools, like T6."
"It will be much easier, and beneficial for the individual to run it on their own machines rather than having a high-end infrastructure, more CPUs, or more memory that has been consumed by Apache JMeter."
"The tool needs to have a better Graphical User Interface. Many of the solution's features are difficult to understand due to the complex user interface and user experience. The product needs to add plugins. It should also work on the integration with external partners like IDE and API gateways."
"It needs time to mature."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
"On a smaller scale, there will be no budget issues, but as we expand to a larger user base, I believe we will face some pricing challenges."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while SmartBear LoadNinja is ranked 14th in Performance Testing Tools with 3 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while SmartBear LoadNinja is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear LoadNinja writes "Easy to use with good documentation and helpful support". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca, whereas SmartBear LoadNinja is most compared with ReadyAPI Performance, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad and Selenium HQ. See our Apache JMeter vs. SmartBear LoadNinja report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.