Apache JMeter Reviews

We are writing scripts using various tools in multiple environments. We have tests set up where you have to pass the credentials in to get a session ID, and it sets and checks the cookies. Then, we check the response values and pass them on to the next function.

We have this solution integrated with Jenkins and we also use it for database performance testing.

The most valuable features are the integration with Jenkins and the reporting.

JMeter allows us to automate performance testing and raise diagnostic functions.

This solution should support the Ruby programming language for scripting.

JMeter should support dynamic throughput so that we can reduce or increase it during the execution of the scripts. 

For performance testing, we would like to be able to select different bandwidths such as 3G or 4G.

The interface could be made more user-friendly.

I have been working with Apache JMeter for the past three months.

We have not had any problems with stability.

So far, I haven't had any issues with scalability when performance testing.

We have not yet been in contact with technical support.

I have also started working with BlazeMeter. One of the differences is that the automation is not possible in BlazeMeter. However, BlazeMeters allows for the selection of different bandwidths, it takes less time to write tests, and it is more user-friendly.

The initial setup is straightforward. We have not yet completed our full deployment with all of the tests.

Our internal team was responsible for the implementation.

We are currently comparing the differences between Apache JMeter and BlazeMeter.

JMeter is a good solution but it requires writing manual scripts and takes longer than BlazeMeter. It takes longer to cover the same number of use cases and is not as user-friendly.

I would rate this solution a four out of ten.

We use Apache JMeter for lower-end performance testing. Sometimes we use it for Rest API testing, as well.

This solution allows us to have a detailed look at performance using different metrics. We can look at the deviation and the median values and see how it is performing. We can also analyze our servers and see how they are performing in terms of CPU and how much memory is allocated.

The most valuable feature in JMeter is the Thread Group, which helps us to see whether the performance is good.

The plugin for git allows us to scan files directly from the GitHub site.

The reporting is good and there are a lot of different formats available.

If you want to see the data that is associated with a response then you can download it in JSON format.

There is a large user community that can help you to learn and use JMeter.

When we are testing with too many threads then the solution hangs.

JMeter does not support JavaScript.

Automation is difficult in JMeter.

We have been using JMeter for the past two years.

Stability becomes an issue if we use more than 10 or 20 threads.

We have not been in contact with Apache technical support.

There is a large user community and if you need help then you can get instant help from them.

We also use Postman and when it comes to making a very large request, it is the better option. It is also a user-friendly solution and you do not have to go through a lot of documents to start using it.

JMeter works better for iterative testing.

It is easy to set up and administer JMeter.

This is an open-source product.

This is a good solution but many features would have to be added to use this tool alone. Postman has more features, so JMeter is really only good for performance testing.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use for it is testing websites: load testing and performance testing.

JMeter is very easy for a user who doesn't have too much programming knowledge, as scripting is not mandatory nor essential to create the testing scenarios. This means the user doesn't need to know how to write code to run a complete set of load tests. Although, If you're an advanced user, JMeter does gives the possibility of using BeanShell, Groovy or Java to script your tests.

JMeter has a very friendly and intuitive User Interface which allows users to configure the scenarios reusing components already defined, which you can also modify to fit the requirements of the tests.

One very important feature of JMeter is that it is open source and it can be easily extended through a huge set of available plugins.

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 k6. It would be simpler that way. JMeter is a very old tool. It has been around for about 15 years. While it has been improved over the last few years, it is a little complicated to run several tests at the same time with different sites.

JMeter could be easier. It would be a great improvement if it was easier to integrate with the CI deployments, with tools like Jenkins or CircleCI.

Our teams have been using it for about five years.

It is a very stable tool.

In my opinion, it is not scalable. We haven't found an easy way to do that.

We would like to increase our usage but we are trying to figure out the best way to integrate it with our new circuit. Our plan is to use a tool like this with customers. That is the reason we are evaluating the pros and cons of different tools. We want to incorporate these tools into our web development process, mainly in our CI/CD process. We are trying to figure out how to use tools that are designed to empower developers.

We have used LoadUI and SmartBear with tools like Selenium. Some of the developers, at that time, were used to JMeter and they introduced it. It is a very nice tool.

The initial setup is simple. It is not a hard tool to use. It has a very nice UI and the end-users are very comfortable using the tool. People deploy it themselves.

I would definitely recommend JMeter. It is a very nice tool. It is easy to use and there are several components already developed in the tool that you can use to simplify the process of defining and redefining scripts. But I would like it to be more flexible and integrate with other tools.

In general, the primary use case of this solution is for performance testing and load testing.

Typically it is for load tests. They have to focus on three metrics including throughput, response times, and the utilization of the resources including the CPUs.

We are delivering some bank houses with performance tests, through JMeter.

The deployment model varies depending on the client. Some have a private line.

From the customers' perspective, the most valuable feature is the price.

The most valuable feature for us is the available information on the forums and to be able to discuss and get answers from the people that are involved in using this tool.

They have to find a way to prepare the script or to prepare a detailed analysis. We have to collect all the information on each of the services we have to call. Based on this they have to collect in the phase of preparation for the performance test and then we can run our audit. It is easy to prepare a script to run a performance test.

You can't rely on the support. It's something that is not fully working.

The scalability of this solution needs some improvement.

There is some work to be done with the integration.

This solution is stable, but it does have one limitation with the number of throughputs. For example, if I want to generate four, five, or two thousand people working concurrently then they have to prepare our setup for ten PC servers.

Normally they can run a load for five thousand people, customers, or users working concurrently. It is scalable but needs some improvement.

The technical support on the site is not fully functioning.

The initial setup is easy and straightforward.

You can have it running within thirty minutes.

I had always implemented this solution myself, but It's been a couple of years since I did it last.

Now it is done through our company technicians.  I just coordinate activity-performance tests for our customers.

This is an open-source solution, and there are no fees.

The requirements for most of our customers is to provide them with cheap solutions, and most prefer not to pay for software. This is the right solution for them based on some of the open-source tools that are available.

There are some commercial solutions that provide better integration to the solutions that must be tested when running loads.

I would rate this solution an eight out ten.

We primarily use the solution for API testing.

The ease of use is the solution's most valuable feature. Also, the ability to easily create test cases is also very good. It's easy to just ramp up on the solution.

The solution is new to us. I'm not sure if we're using the full capabilities of the solution yet, but from what we have used, we're quite satisfied.

In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane.

The solution is stable.

The solution is very scalable.

We're not using too many features of the solution itself, so we haven't needed the assistance of technical support yet.

We previously used LoadRunner. We decided to switch because on LoadRunner scaling up was a problem.  We needed licenses to do so and it was becoming a problem for us to simulate the number of users we were expecting. 

The general setup of the solution is straightforward.

Before we chose JMeter, we looked at NeoLoad, but it looked to have the same issues surrounding licensing that LoadRunner did.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

The advice I would give to others would be to look at your requirements and decide if the solution is right for you. For us, it was API testing and JMeter is very good for this.

I'd rate this solution nine out of ten.

This is a cost-effective tool, which provides people the ability to do POCs without worrying about costs.

Apache JMeter provided us with the opportunity to test applications for clients who did not have the budget to employ heavy-duty tools like LoadRunner.

Additionally, due to ease of installation, it can be installed in any client network, without the requirement for port opening.

API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease.

The tool should be made a bit more robust, and better support should be made available.

I set a script reporting and execute test report and analysis on almost all stages of the performance cycle except in regards to requirements and the environment.

we saved a lot on licenses for commercial tool

The features that helpful are the coding and the opportunity to work with the SQL directly in order to report on the data. You can collect all the test data from DB with these and then do post test execution metrics collection as well(if you need DB)

RegEx Extractor needs improvement. It's a headache for many people. The solution could use some sort of educational features to offer tips and hints to help users navigate it better. They should improve the manuals and help files. I've searched the internet for answers over the past year or so, and I haven't come across anything that is helpful. The community help files are pretty good, but their own help files are not.

In the next release, it would be helpful to offer more flexible graph handling to be able to combine different metrics into one graph.

quitre stable but keep an eye on RAM consumption and smart execution tips (can see on their site)

Scalability is good, though you need to be aware of distributed and non guis test execution modes. 

It's a free tool, so they don't offer technical support. If you need help, you need to Google and search for answers on your own.

I've used LoadRunner in the past, among other solutions. I switched to Apache because it is free. Other tools are much too expensive and can cost up to $50,000 a year if you are looking at commercial options.

Now Neoload probably the best one (better than Load runner as per my subjective perception) but it's a way too costly 

please take a look at ROI and scal of performance tests. For big projects and organizations consider Load Runner or Neoload, but if you have small project, most likely you wil lstop on Apache Jmeter. Also it depends on the protocol support. But because of big community, Apache jmeter has constant income of new plugins developed

For people thinking about implementing the solution, I would advise that they know what protocols they want to work with. I would recommend doing an evaluation of script maintenance. You need to see how stable your automation disk and performance is. 

I would rate this solution nine out of ten. The solution offers a lot of plug-ins and a huge, continuously developing community that is regularly offering new features and plug-ins.

We primarily use the solution for performance download testing.

It's a solution that's easy to use. It's a bit different from SoapUI and LoadUI.

The user interface is a little bit tricky.

The solution is very stable.

It's not 100% scalable like LoadUI, but LoadUI is very expensive. We're an outsourcing company, so we have approximately ten users. We may have plans to expand in the future.

The solution doesn't have technical support. If we need answers, we look for them on the internet.

Previously, we used the basic version of LoadUI. We switched because LoadUI is very expensive and Apache JMeter is free.

The initial setup was complex. We did have it done in a day. It took approximately one hour. We have about five to six people that manage the solution.

The solution is free. You don't need to worry about licensing costs.

We didn't evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

We are using the private cloud version of the solution.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten. If it had a bit of a better user interface, I would rate it higher.