BlazeMeter Reviews

We use the solution for enterprise performance testing of various technologies including web services, APIs, and web GUIs.

We deployed the solution to increase our performance testing footprint, which we needed to upscale for the maturity of our operation. 

We have six on-prem load generators on our network, and the rest of our deployment is in the cloud. It's a very simple architectural design.

BlazeMeter opened up performance testing for us. Our old solution was a client-based performance testing tool, and for staff to access it, they needed to remotely connect to a Windows VM and book time with that controller. Now our tool is web-based, and we onboarded 12 to 14 teams to BlazeMeter, which would not have happened before. Our CoE team was the go-to for performance testing, but the solution has opened up the practice to the whole enterprise, making teams more self-sufficient, and that's the most significant benefit. Performance testing is no longer segregated to one team.

Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most.

We have a very high opinion of the range of test tools the solution provides, it has a great deal of potential and we are just scratching the surface of it currently. As our maturity and skillset with the product increase, we'll be able to leverage that more. For example, we don't really use mock services yet. We know how to, but we're still set in some of our ways. 

BlazeMeter being cloud-based and open-source is vital; it was one of our top priorities when choosing a solution. Much like the rest of the world, we're moving away from the old paradigm of the Windows days where we would bring up a server, get Windows licenses, an operating system, and maintain it all. With BlazeMeter, most of that is done for us, and we don't have to worry about infrastructure. We have on-prem load generators for teams needing to run load tests from within our network, and we need to maintain that capacity. However, we don't have to host anything outside of the load generators in the network, so the maintenance effort and cost are much less than they would be as a legacy system.  

The solution does bridge Agile and CoE teams. It's a shift-left tool, and testing comes in much earlier than in the past. BlazeMeter is a valuable asset in this regard. 

The tool helped us to implement shift-left testing. Many of our teams with the required skillset can include performance testing as part of their build runs. This may not be high-level testing; internally, we refer to it as early performance testing. It allows teams to confirm the software is functioning correctly early, which was not the case before. We would wait until a certain point in the SDLC before running a performance check, and now we're able to implement that much earlier in the process. 

We currently don't have any stats on changes in our test cycle times, but there is no doubt in my mind that BlazeMeter improved our software quality.

We have not faced challenges in getting multiple teams to adopt BlazeMeter. We onboarded around 50 users in three quarters, which is incredible considering we had two performance testers before implementing the solution. Our only challenge is skill sets, our staff wants to adopt the tool and understand its importance, but they may not have the resources or skillset to do so. Those with the necessary skillset are onboarded as soon as their project is greenlighted. 

Our biggest challenge is the skill set required to operate the solution because we used to have a centralized performance testing team. Now we've opened it up to other teams; some needed to onboard new resources. The solution is simple and user-friendly, but we still need the right staff to use it.

We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs.

We have been using the solution for about nine months.

The solution is very stable. We had a few issues with users getting 404 errors recently, but that's the first time we have encountered any problems in three quarters. 

The scalability is incredible. We could scale it to as big or small as we want, with our license being the sole limitation. The resources are in Docker containers in Docker images. We could scale within a few minutes if necessary. 

The technical support is excellent. When we had hiccups during deployment, they responded quickly with effective solutions for us.

We used other tools and switched because they weren't as user-friendly. BlazeMeter offered us the ability to increase our performance testing footprint without requiring a high level of performance testing expertise from our QA staff. Additionally, our old solutions were client-based, and BlazeMeter is cloud-based, providing all the advantages that come with that.

The deployment is very straightforward. That was one of our criteria, as we didn't want a complex new enterprise solution rollout. There were a few bumps during deployment, but most of that was on our side. BlazeMeter is relatively simple compared to other enterprise solutions we implemented.

Less than ten staff were involved in the deployment. We used Linux Enterprise to house the six on-premise load generators, and there were a couple of employees responsible for Docker, our solutions architect, and myself as the admin.

I don't have a concrete figure, but I can say once we sunset our old solution, that will save us a significant amount of money on infrastructure, licensing, and maintenance. I also think there is an ROI associated purely with the increased quality of our software, thanks to BlazeMeter.

The product isn't cheap, but it isn't the most expensive on the market. During our proof of concept, we discovered that you get what you pay for; we found a cheaper solution we tested to be full of bugs. Therefore, we are willing to pay the higher price tag for the quality BlazeMeter offers.

We carried out a proof of concept of four tools, which included BlazeMeter. It's more stable and mature, with well-documented APIs. BlazeMeter University was a significant consideration for us due to our requirements; it helped us roll out the solution to multiple teams. It seemed like APIs for the other solutions were an afterthought.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The solution enables the creation of test data for performance and functional testing, but our use is focused on performance testing. We don't particularly use functional testing, but we are currently talking about using test data management for functional testing. We have our in-house automation framework, so the ability to create both functional and performance test data isn't a high priority for us.  

We don't use BlazeMeter's ability to build test data on-the-fly, not because we aren't aware of it, but because we are still at the early stages with the solution. Until fairly recently, just one other person and I were in charge of performance testing for the entire company, so having self-sufficient teams is an immense change for us as an organization.

I would say it's critical to have the appropriate skillsets among the staff as we could deploy just about any solution in an enterprise. Still, it won't be used to its total capacity without the proper skills. BlazeMeter showed us how little performance testing we were doing before and how vital increasing that footprint is. We've onboarded 50 users; that's 50 users who were not engaged less than a year ago and can all carry-out performance testing.

This solution can work very well for enterprise companies with a more advanced skill pool to draw from. For beginners in this area, specific skills such as JMeter scripting are required to use the application. It's easier to use than most solutions but requires a particular skill set to deploy and operate successfully. A good solutions architect and QA leads are essential in evaluating any product.

Previously, to perform performance tests, we had to connect servers in the cloud, configure them to perform the test, and plot the results on a dashboard. BlazeMeter came to simplify all this work.

In terms of deployment, we are using local Linux servers (RHEL 7), and for the cloud, we are using EC2 servers with Amazon Linux. Our cloud provider is Amazon AWS.

With BlazeMeter, our main gains were in agility and efficiency in the execution of performance tests and delivery of post-test reports.

It has helped us to implement shift-left testing. It has certainly helped us to speed up the tests, and with that, we gained time to carry out tests in all development cycles.

It has the ability to build test data on-the-fly, and this on-the-fly test data meets compliance standards, which is very important for us. Real-time data helps us understand the behavior at each level of the test. So, we can define numbers that an application needs to achieve in the test to classify it as being OK or not. This data helps a lot in the real-time investigation. By looking at each level, we can identify the exact moment of degradation or “break”.

It decreased our test cycle times. I believe that we saved at least 50% of the time in preparation for the execution. Using BlazeMeter has greatly simplified our performance testing experience, especially the preparation part.

For me, the best part is that we can graphically see the test result at runtime. It helps us understand the behavior of the application during all stages of the test.

BlazeMeter is a cloud-based and open-source testing platform, which is very important for us because we can be sure that we're using a tool that follows market trends and stays up-to-date.

The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds.

I have been using this solution for approximately 1 year.

It is very stable. We haven't seen any instability or unavailability issues so far.

It is scalable as per our needs. In our working model, the only team that uses BlazeMeter is ours. This solution is used only by our team whose mission is to bring performance tests to projects and squads.

They are very good. In the beginning, they held a workshop with our team, and whenever we ask questions, we are attended to without any problem. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We didn't use any other solution. We performed the tests manually.

As soon as we got to know this tool, we realized how important it would be and the benefits it would bring to the company. Its main benefits have been gains in agility and efficiency. 

For the performance tests that we carry out in the company, we only use BlazeMeter. I don't know any other tools. My view of BlazeMeter is that it is a very mature tool that delivers what it has set out to deliver in an excellent way.

I was not involved in its deployment. In terms of maintenance, the only maintenance is setting up new servers for use. This configuration is usually performed by us in the Performance team.

I don't have access to the information about its cost. So, I can't say if we have seen an ROI and if we have reduced our test operating costs.

We did not review other products.

BlazeMeter brings agility and efficiency in the preparation and execution of performance tests. With this, we gain time which is used to increase the scope of tests and anticipate possible problems.

BlazeMeter didn't help bridge Agile and CoE teams because we have a specific team. So, there was no involvement of professionals who work with agile. We gained agility and efficiency, but there was no involvement of any external team.

I would rate BlazeMeter a nine out of ten.

We have a couple of use cases for BlazeMeter. One is performance testing. It allows us to aggregate the execution and reporting of our performance tests. We can also create automated functional tests relatively quickly compared to writing tests in a coded platform like Java.

Around 20 people in the QA department are using BlazeMeter to test Mendix- based applications. We're doing regression testing on 22 applications, and we have at least two environments that we interact with regularly: a development environment and a pre-production environment.

Before BlazeMeter, we didn't have a performance test aggregator. They were running one-off JMeter tests that weren't stored in a repository. JMeter can generate some reporting, but it's nowhere near as nice as what BlazeMeter provides. And it's more readily understood by the development teams that we work with and the management. That part is great.

We initially purchased the tool for performance testing, but we discovered that we had access to functional testing, so we started using that. That's been great for a lot of the same reasons. It increases visibility and gets everybody on the same page about which tests can run and the status of our regression and functional tests.

BlazeMeter can create test data for performance and functional testing. We don't have much use for that currently, but I could see that being useful for individual functional tests in the future. It's nice to have automatic data generation for test cases.

We haven't used BlazeMeter for shift-left testing. The functional testers embedded with the sprint teams don't do automation. That's all kicked down the road, and the automation is done outside of the sprint. While there is a desire to start attacking things that way, it never really got any traction.

I believe BlazeMeter has also reduced our test times, but I can't quantify that.
It's helped us with our test data challenges. I think they have a lot of great implementation, so I don't want to detract from that, but we have some problems with our applications and some custom things. I think we work on a different platform than many other people do, so it hasn't been as beneficial to us probably as it would be for many other people.

The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update.

The process is pretty straightforward. You can enter data into spreadsheets or use their test data generation feature. You can create thousands of data points if you want. We aren't currently using it to create that much data, but it could easily be used to scale to that. The solution includes a broad range of test tools, including functional tests, performance tests, API testing, etc. They're continuously expanding their features. 

I also like that it's a cloud-based solution, which gives me a single point of execution and reporting. That's great because we can take links to executed test cases and send those to developers. If they have questions, the developers can follow that link to the test and duplicate it or run the test for themselves.

A cloud solution can be a little bit slower than an on-premises client or maintaining test cases locally on our machine. However, we've also run into issues with that. Sometimes people mess up and push the latest changes to the repository. That's not a problem with BlazeMeter because we're doing all the work in the cloud.

Out of all the functional tests, scriptless testing has been the standout piece for my team because it's cloud-based. It's easy for everybody to get into the navigation, and it's pretty intuitive. There's a recorder that's already built into it. It's easy to get started writing test cases with scriptless testing.

BlazeMeter's object repository provides a single point of update for us with regard to locators or selectors for our web elements. It's the same with the action groups. It's incredibly valuable to have reusable action groups that give us a single point for maintenance. It saves a ton of maintenance time.

The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups. 

We've been using BlazeMeter for a little more than a year now.

BlazeMeter is pretty solid. The only complaint is performance. When we get massive tests, we run into some issues.

We've never had issues with scalability. We've got hundreds of tests in BlazeMeter now, and we haven't had a problem aside from some performance problems with reporting. 

I rate BlazeMeter support ten out of ten. The BlazeMeter team has been fantastic. Anytime we need something, they're always on it fast. We have regular meetings with the team where we have an opportunity to raise issues, so they help us find solutions in real-time. That's been great.

Positive

We were previously using Java and Selenium. We implemented BlazeMeter for the performance testing. When we discovered the functional test features, it was easy to pick up and start using. It was an accident that we stumbled into. Our use grew out of an initial curiosity of, "Let's see if we can create this test." And, "Oh, wow. That was really quick and easy." And it grew from there into a bunch more tests.

Our DevOps team did all the setup, so I wasn't involved. We have faced challenges getting our functional test teams to engage with BlazeMeter. They don't have automation experience, so they're hesitant to pick it up and start using it. We've made a couple of attempts to show them how to get started with scriptless, but the incentive has not been good enough. Generally, it's still the regression team that handles the automation with Blazemeter, as well as whatever else we're using.

After deployment, we don't need to do much maintenance. Sometimes, we have to update test cases because they break, but BlazeMeter itself is low-maintenance.

We've seen a return. I don't know exactly how many test cases are in BlazeMeter now, but we've added quite a few functional test cases in there. It's the tool that our performance testing uses right now in conjunction with JMeter.

I can't speak about pricing. My general evaluation isn't from that standpoint. I make the pitch to the leadership, saying, "I think we should get this," and somebody above me makes a decision about whether we can afford it.

We looked at other solutions for performance testing, not functional testing. 
A few points about BlazeMeter stood out. One was BlazeMeter's onboarding team. They seemed more helpful and engaged. We had a better rapport with them initially, and their toolset integrated well with JMeter, the solution we were already using. It's also a much more cost-effective solution than the other options.

I rate BlazeMeter nine out of ten. There's still some room to grow, but it's a pretty solid product. If you're comparing this to other tools and you're thinking about using BlazeMeter for functional testing, take a look at the action groups, object library, and test data generation features. Those three things make your day-to-day work a lot easier. It simplifies creating and maintaining your tests. 

The solution is used as a performance system. 

It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly. The auto-collision feature is also robust. 

The scanning capability needs improvement. 

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year. 

The solution is highly scalable. Five people are using the solution at present. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes few minutes time and a couple of people were involved in the process. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I'm working for a telecommunications client. We are using BlazeMeter's Mock Services as a priority for performance testing, along with API monitoring. These functions are each used on different projects.

One of the projects for this client is completely based on Mock Services and, with the help of that functionality, we are able to complete end-to-end testing with all the dependent components.

There are third-company suppliers who provide components that need to be tested, but most of the time we do not get those components on time. Normally, we would wait until the development is completed and only then go for automation. But now, with the help of the Mock Services, once we get the source code, we upload it directly into the Mock Services and into the API monitoring. Once we get the tracers, we are ready to point to the actual instances and test things immediately. By the time we get to that stage, we are ready for the market. That means that even before getting the complete component, we can start working with something. There is no need to wait. As a result of the Mock Services, the time it takes us to develop API automation is minimized.

Also, we had a number of performance testing tools, but we had to integrate third-party applications for generating reports. That was a pain point for us when it came to showcasing things to stakeholders so that they could be aware of what was happening. But now, everything is available once the performance testing is completed. We can immediately see the reports, and when a test is running, I can share the execution page with anyone else, as a link. That means they can view exactly what is happening, moment by moment, regarding the response time, request time, and latency. That feature is not available in some of the other applications and possibly not in any of the other applications.

One of the areas that BlazeMeter benefits us is our test cycle times. In the past, if there was a defect with a component, we would have to wait until the issue was fixed. And even though we were not testing that particular component, because of the dependency of that component, we would have to wait until the issue was fixed. If it ended up going beyond the deadline for the release cycle, we would leave that test case for the next release.

With the help of the Mock Services, we are overcoming everything. Wherever we are facing issues, whether they will be long term or temporary, by implementing the Mock Services we can bypass the faulty components that are not needed for our particular testing. In that way, we are able to reduce our cycle times. In addition, we have some physical devices and network devices in our testing. It takes a week to create physical devices in a virtual way. Instead, with the Mock Services we are creating them in a minute, and that helps our end-to-end testing to be completed on time. The benefit of BlazeMeter's Mock Services is that it takes us through our testing early in the cycle.

In a single line of business, in a particular call flow, if we have 1,000 test cases per release, 100 to 200 of them are with the help of the Mock Services. That saves us time, money, and manpower.

And before we had BlazeMeter's API monitoring, if there were 10 components and anything was down, we would not be aware. We would not send a heartbeat every second to all of the components to check whether they were down or up. The API monitoring is a real benefit for us because we are able to schedule it for every 30 minutes or every hour, and we can keep on monitoring a component. If there is a failure, we will immediately be notified by email, even on the weekend. We can take action and report the situation to the data analyst and to the component people so that they can immediately work on fixing it.

The API monitoring is one of the most excellent tools we have come across because of the scheduling and the results. We are able to analyze how stable a component is based on that monitoring.

The most valuable features for us are the API monitoring and the Mock Services.

Another good thing is that we can upload JMX files and schedule and monitor performance testing. We are able to share results and see reports that we can't get in JMeter. In that way, the performance testing is good.

In terms of the range of test tools, when there are API calls we can do automation testing, functional testing, performance testing, and use the Mock Services to create a situation that the APIs are down. We are able to handle everything that has to do with APIs. Whatever we have to test—the functionality, the behavior—we are able to do so with the help of BlazeMeter.

One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing.

I don't think they can reduce that time because that's the functionality they have implemented in our BlazeMeter performance testing. But it's a pain point whenever we are running performance testing in a call or a demo, as well as in our live testing when all the business people are there.

The first time I run a given test, if it takes three minutes to download onto my server that's understandable. But every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again, because once the test is completed the files that were downloaded are removed. That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again.

We also had a call last week regarding secret keys. In JMX we have some Backend Listeners, such as Kibana, and there are usernames and passwords for them that we have to manually enter. When we upload the JMX file into BlazeMeter for performance testing, the usernames and passwords are viewable. Anyone who has access to BlazeMeter can download the JMX file and the usernames and passwords are visible to all those people. That's an issue with the performance testing.

Also, all the competitors have MQ protocol support, which is lacking in BlazeMeter's Mock Services. Having MQ protocol support in the Mock Services would be great for us. JDBC, the database communication, is also lacking. If we had those things, we would be completely satisfied with BlazeMeter's Mock Services. 

And for the API monitoring, we are missing a data-driven approach. If, for a single API call, we have 50 to 100 test cases, there should be no need for us to create multiple steps or to duplicate the test steps. Instead, if we had a data-driven approach available, we could directly add the test data into an Excel sheet and call it into the single test steps and achieve what we need to do. We have raised this concern to the Perforce team as well, and they said they are working on it.

I've been using BlazeMeter for two year.

It's stable. Sometimes we do face issues, but they are understandable things.

Every month or two months, something will happen in the back end. The UI will say, for example, that performance testing is down due to this or that reason, and that they are fixing it. Sometimes it affects our testing. We will be in a demo or in a call with our stakeholders where we are presenting and something will be down.

We will raise a support ticket and they will say they are analyzing it and fixing it. They won't take much time, but at that time, it's a pain point. But it happens in all tools. Because it is a cloud tool it's expected, but it's not happening very frequently, so we are happy with it.

We have weekly calls with the BlazeMeter support team, and that's a great thing. During those calls they will ask if there are any issues and whether we need something resolved. If we raise any concerns, they immediately help us during that call. If not, they will ask us to raise a ticket and they follow up on it on both sides—on the support side and with us. They will give us updates. I haven't seen any other companies do that. I have been amazed with the basic support.

We also get weekly updates on whatever the roadmap contains and the new features they are going to be implementing. If we have any doubts we address them in the call. We are using some other tools, but we haven't seen this much support from any other company. When it comes to support, Perforce is the best company I have ever come across.

Positive

We haven't had a chance to use the cloud services because of security issues related to our company. We only use the on-prem server. But the cloud services are one of the best things about BlazeMeter when comparing it with its competitors.

We have older tools, like CA DevTest, that we are still using due to dependencies on JMX, MQ, and JDBC steps that are not available with BlazeMeter. With DevTest we are able to handle a lot of the custom extensions. Instead of the Mock Services, we were using the CA DevTest Service Virtualization tool. We want to move completely to BlazeMeter but we can't because of those dependencies.

Ca DevTest is the main competitor, but it doesn't have the performance testing available. Both solutions have pluses and minuses.

DevTest is hard to use. It has too many features for Service Virtualization. If a beginner is trying to learn something in DevTest, it's hard. It might take a month or two months to get some understanding of what the DevTest tool does. BlazeMeter is very simple. Even for beginners, they give some options in the Mock Services. If you're a beginner, you can create a Mock Service and it gives you a description for each and every step. This way, beginners can easily adopt BlazeMeter.

In addition to the step-by-step demos, there is the BlazeMeter University. When we onboard people into BlazeMeter, we ask them to go through those courses. For example, if we are asking them to work on API monitoring, we have them do the course on API monitoring. Once they get the certification, we have them work on the API monitoring. With the BlazeMeter University, there is no need for us to have a separate KB on how it will work or how it will respond. Onboarding people into BlazeMeter is not a problem for us.

We were using the functional testing for APIs, but it has been disabled in our organization. I asked what was the purpose of disabling it and they said it was to make sure that everyone is using the API monitoring. Although we requested that they enable it again for our purposes, so far we haven't had much chance to explore the API functional testing.

Overall, I would rate the solution at seven out of 10 because I have sent some requirements for API monitoring and performance testing on Mock Services separately, to separate teams; things that should be introduced into BlazeMeter. Until those things are available, I am not able to use some of the components 

I use BlazeMeter for the different samplers it provides.

The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for two years. My company is a customer of the solution.

Right now, I don't know about the product's stability. I did not experience any downtime or performance issues with the solution.

For support, I generally use Google or other online sources.

Though I have experience with a solution from OpenText, I feel BlazeMeter is the best. The main reason my company chose BlazeMeter was because it was preferred by one of our clients.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

The product's installation deployment phase

The solution can be deployed in thirty minutes.

The solution did not help save money or time, and neither did it improve security since it was mainly used in our company to deal with the network part.

I have not integrated the tool with any other solutions.

Though it is a good tool, there are certain areas where improvements are required in the product.

Compared to BlazeMeter, multiple options are available in the market for people to choose from to meet their requirements.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

The use cases of BlazeMeter encompass a wide range of scenarios, including loop load testing for API-level, web service, or web application load testing. The primary purpose is to simulate various types of loads. For instance, if the load originates from distributed load testing, opting for a dedicated cloud solution would be advisable. This allows testing applications from diverse geographic locations and handling traffic from different tiers effectively. JAMITA cloud is particularly recommended for this situation, as it efficiently manages infrastructure interfaces and resolves technical intricacies associated with infrastructure maintenance.

It simplifies the process by emphasizing the key aspects of writing, uploading, and running scripts for testing purposes.

The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results.

BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain.

I have used BlazeMeter within the last 12 months.

BlazeMeter is a highly scalable solution. The solution is SaaS and the cloud vendor controls the scalability.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

The initial setup of BlazeMeter is straightforward.

I rate BlazeMeter an eight out of ten.

We are using it to execute performance testing for our website and mobile applications, including e-commerce solutions, internet banking, and more.

Our applications are in a cloud environment and have a lot of users using them at the same time. We are looking to create a better experience for the users. We execute this kind of performance setting to establish a baseline for response times and we use it to reduce them.

We are both a customer of BlazeMeter and a partner that implements it for other customers.

It helps us to work faster when doing performance testing. Because we're faster, we can better use our resources. We have more capacity for our backlog.

We have better visibility into test metrics by managing the reports and dashboards that present the results of test execution. That helps us to evaluate the performance parameters that the application should achieve. It has been great seeing the results that we are achieving.

It has definitely helped us to implement shift-left testing. By doing performance tests faster and earlier in the process, we have the opportunity to prevent performance issues in production. That aspect is very good.

In addition, the Scriptless Testing functionality means we can build a performance testing team in which some members don't need to have extreme programming or development experience. We can create a mixed team that has professionals with great expertise and less experienced people so that we can prepare them for the future.

Another benefit is the ability to build test data on-the-fly. That helps us increase test coverage. It's one of the main functionalities that helps us with that. It has also decreased our test cycle times by almost 35 percent, but I do believe that it could be even more than that.

One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before.

It can also be used for both performance and functional testing of any application and we can manage different kinds of data to better cover the performance and functional testing of the applications. For example, if we need different kinds of data to test the different uses of an application, we can use this platform to help us with that. 

Another thing we like is that while it's difficult sometimes to connect this kind of performance test solution with application performance monitoring solutions, BlazeMeter has been great. Our experience with that has been great.

BlazeMeter is the perfect tool for us because it works with cloud and open source and other vendors' solutions. It's very good with other testing solutions in both our and our customers' ecosystems. For example, it's very good for perfecting mobile solutions and with other test data management solutions. It's very easy to integrate it into the software testing processes and tools that our customers are using.

It's also very good at bridging Agile and CoE teams. One thing that we are exploring right now, to make sure it works correctly, is the integration of BlazeMeter in the continuous integration and continuous delivery journey.

I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three to four years.

I don't recall having any issues with its stability. I'm extremely satisfied with that.

The scalability is great. We can have a lot of virtual users when we need them.

We use BlazeMeter in different environments because we have customers with on-prem and cloud solutions.

I'm very happy with the technical support. They have answered all our needs.

Positive

We went with BlazeMeter because we can easily access the platform through the internet and because it is very easy to incorporate it into our processes.

The return on investment is guaranteed with BlazeMeter. If you only look at the price, you will only see one side of the financial equation. We like to evaluate the return on investment in terms of reduced testing time, increased productivity, and the ability to deliver many more features into production with BlazeMeter.

I've worked with other performance testing, service virtualization, and test data management solutions. I have been working in the software testing area since 2000.

People love using JMeter, which is an open-source solution, but I prefer BlazeMeter because we can easily orchestrate a lot of testing. It has additional features that help make our performance and non-functional-requirements testing better, because we can integrate it with functional testing. And there are service virtualization and test data management features in the same solution. In a good number of cases, we only need BlazeMeter to do many things, rather than using two or three tools to do the same job. It's a single workplace where we can do many things.

My advice would be not to look only at the price as the only point of decision. Evaluate if the tool is a good fit with your business and challenges.

We are using the SaaS solution. For companies that want to start, it's a better approach because it's easy to use: Pay and go. Of course, in large accounts, we are facing companies that are looking not only for cloud and private cloud, but for hybrid solutions where it is installed on-premises and in the cloud. BlazeMeter is up to this kind of challenge.

Adoption is a challenge that we face with every new tool or process. Because BlazeMeter is easy to use, we can adopt it faster. For developers and Agile teams, it's very helpful when we can use something quickly. That has helped a lot in the adoption.

The level of maintenance is okay. It is nothing that would create barriers for us. We have a team of eight people involved in the solution, and their roles include administration and performance testing.

Blazemeter is one of the top-three that I have found. It doesn't have any negative points compared to others.

BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool.

If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market.

I used BlazeMeter within the past 12 months.

BlazeMeter is a stable solution.

We have not done a lot of scalability testing with BlazeMeter to determine the full capabilities of the solution.

Small enterprises would prefer to use BlazeMeter and those companies which have a favorable budget should choose Micro Focus LoadRunner or Tricentis NeoLoad.

There is minimal support available for BlazeMeter. You have to use the internet and try to do some searches to find solutions to your problems.

I have used many similar solutions similar to BlazeMeter, such as JMeter, which I believe BlazeMeter is a customized version of JMeter. It is difficult to compare BlazeMeter to either Micro Focus LoadRunner or Tricentis NeoLoad because it is more of an open-source solution. You do not receive the high level of support that you do with paid solutions. You have to refer to the internet to resolve issues.

The difficulty level for the installation of BlazeMeter depends on how we want to implement it. It's easy to download and install, but some companies restrict the security side of it. The paid solutions are more secure compared to these open-source solutions.

The solution is free and open source.

BlazeMeter should release frequently updated demo versions of the solution to the market. They can let the internet community test it, such as crowdsourced testing, this would be good for them in the market.

I would recommend this solution to others if they have a small budget and do not have the option to buy another solution. Otherwise, Tricentis NeoLoad and Micro Focus LoadRunner are the best.

I rate BlazeMeter a four out of ten.

I mainly use BlazeMeter for scripting. I have a performance testing background, and can directly record my workload with the help of a BlazeMeter plugin. Once I've recorded I can modify a couple of enhancements. I can design my signature in BlazeMeter and choose multiple dedicated IPs, depending on our load. We are system integrators and I'm a senior engineer. 

Providing the Cloud load generator is a good feature. We can run executions from multiple locations. Very few tools provide that. They have recently started with separate API testing. I haven't had a chance to use that yet but it might be very helpful. The solution offers flexibility with its configurations, taking around two to five minutes each. You can see the metrics in a graphical view while running the tests. Response times are also visible and can filter whatever we need and get the results of error loads. 

Documentation for the solution could be improved because there are some areas, such as licensing costs, where there is a lack of information regarding structure. I'd also like the ability to see a comparison feature after carrying out several tests. I'd like to know the difference in terms of response times and other details. That would be a great feature for them to provide. 

Sometimes we'd like to include additional users during a test run to check application sustainability. We can do it from a scripting end but it would be great if BlazeMeter would provide the option of adding a few more users while running a test.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The stability is good. 

The scalability is good. 

If there are issues I update it in a chat and the technical support creates a ticket ID for follow-up. Sometimes they respond very quickly and other times they are very slow at resolving the issue. Response times are inconsistent. 

The initial setup is relatively straightforward and user-friendly. We have less than 50 users, we don't do any load tests.

I recommend BlazeMeter because of the accuracy of the results. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10.