BlazeMeter Reviews

As our company wanted to use a cloud solution, we opted for BlazeMeter instead of an on-premises load generator.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports.

Integration with APM tools is an area where the product has certain shortcomings and needs improvement. Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved.

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year.

It has been stable so far as per our company's user's usage.

It is a scalable solution. My company does not have a high user load to deal with using the product.

Our company has not made many critical errors in getting technical support. Whatever difficulties our company has faced with the tool, we got support from online sources or through raising a ticket. Also, the response from the support team has been good.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

I use JMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was user-friendly.

The solution is deployed on the browser.

The solution can be deployed in two to three days.

It is an averagely priced product. One of the reasons my company opted for the tool is because it is an averagely-priced product. Though we do have an APM tool in place, we chose BlazeMeter for cloud testing in our company.

BlazeMeter is the solution my company chose since it is the only tool we found compatible with JMeter. BlazeMeter's help-oriented resources and documentation support JMeter too extensively.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

Whenever I am not able to record the script with the JMeter, I use BlazeMeter extensions to record the scripts. Whenever there is a need to execute something in the cloud, my company uses BlazeMeter.

There are some advantageous features that are available in BlazeMeter. The type of HTML reports that can be downloaded from BlazeMeter can be shown to the clients so that they can be provided with a clear picture in a clean way, allowing even a layperson to be able to understand the metrics our company shows with the help of BlazeMeter.

Whenever we use BlazeMeter for the ramp-up and designing the scenarios in our company, we also use JMeter or other load testing tools, which provide some convenience in areas where the granularity can be maintained in seconds. The ramp-up and ramp-down require our company to use the granularity for a few minutes, making it an area where improvements are required to be able to use the granularity in seconds. From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved.

Whenever we discuss the development stage, JMeter has plug-ins and other extensions in the area of WebSockets, and it is the same case in terms of the kind of extensions provided by JMeter that are available in LoadRunner. BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet. Decoding the scripts that contain the applications with Java Applet is not possible with BlazeMeter or even with JMeter, and it includes some Oracle and desktop applications, too.

I have experience with BlazeMeter.

I didn't get much opportunity to work on the tool, but as per my experience, I can say that BlazeMeter serves as an alternate tool whenever my company faces some hurdles or challenges with the JMeter and k6. To record the scripts, I use BlazeMeter as an extension. With BlazeMeter, it is very easy to identify if a request belongs to an application or not, and in the initial phase itself, we can neglect the requests that don't belong to the application. In BlazeMeter, depending upon the requests, users can select a particular domain.

Though the product is scalable, I found the tool to be a bit tricky while setting up the scenario for the stress test and during step-up and step-down kind of scenario setup.

I have experience with Grafana and JMeter.

Whenever a comparison is made between JMeter and BlazeMeter, there are a lot of differences one can observe. With JMeter, our company has to concentrate on the features as it is an open-source tool that works with Java. The configuration of the systems should have some high-end configuration, and the heap size depends upon the load our company uses. JMeter can be used in UI or GUI mode or in a non-GUI mode. If users have to go with a smoke test and the preparation of scripts, the GUI mode of JMeter can be used. For the actual execution of load testing, we have to go with JMeter's non-GUI mode. With the non-GUI mode, until the completion of the test, I could see the percentage of the error, but I couldn't see what kind of error was there in the application. In JMeter, I had to wait until the completion of the entire test. When we use the BlazeMeter cloud as a licensed tool in our company, we do have to deal with the setup of any configuration area. With BlazeMeter, whenever our company executes the load test, parallelly we can monitor what kind of errors we get, and if possible, we can have a word with the development team in parallel and we can solve all the issues so we don't need to wait until the completion of the tests as some of them may be longer than thirty minutes to an hour. In current situations, everything works in the cloud, and every request and every click gets counted in the cost. In BlazeMeter, there is no need to wait till completion of the one hour or until the end of the testing phase. BlazeMeter provides better reporting, but it takes much longer to do so, making it an area of concern where improvements are required. It is not always sufficient to only use BlazeMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was simple.

The solution can be deployed in less than five minutes.

When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good.

Currently, I am looking out for Java Applet and Oracle applications. I want something that will support the load testing phase for the tools that Java Applet and Oracle support.

I rate the overall tool between six and seven out of ten.

I occasionally used BlazeMeter for load testing to get insights into log distribution and generate reports.

It is a good choice for people transitioning to cloud-based load testing tools and its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options.

Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations. Enhancements in data import/export and integration with other tools could be beneficial. Additionally, providing support for certain tools like Grafana, which some competitors offer, would be a good extension to consider.

I haven't noticed any stability issues with BlazeMeter so far. 

BlazeMeter's scalability for our company depends on the cost and our testing needs. It is a complex decision since it is all about how much testing we do, for how long, and what our budget allows. It is all about finding the right balance between our requirements and affordability.

I haven't directly used BlazeMeter's technical support, but I have found that their online resources and community are quite responsive. They have a strong presence on sites like Stack Overflow, with experts who provide quick assistance.

The initial setup is fairly simple. Deploying BlazeMeter is a quick process and it takes just a couple of minutes. You need to have an account with them, upload your test scripts from your local machine, and then configure and initiate the test.

Overall, I would rate BlazeMeter as 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.

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 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.

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.