BlazeMeter Reviews

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 

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 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.

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. 

We used BlazeMeter for our performance testing. It allows us to run our tests on the local area network. Its primary use is to make sure that applications can handle a high load before going into the production environment. It will generate a report with the results.

The clients come up with some of the test cases and we have to validate them.

Using this product has improved the way our organization does testing.

This is a customizable product.

The documentation is good.

The sharing works well.

Having more options for customization would be helpful.

We have been using BlazeMeter for the last six months.

We have about 20 users who run over 1,000 test cases.

The technical support is good. They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us.

I started working directly with Blazemeter. There is another person in the company who is using LoadRunner and it costs about $300 per year.

The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the platform for performance and load testing to ensure our applications can handle varying traffic levels.

The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based nature, which allows us to conduct tests without relying on local resources.

Additionally, linking reports with Slack for notifications has greatly benefited our team’s communication.

The product could improve in areas such as mobile testing and the integration of AI analytics.

I have been using BlazeMeter for about two weeks. 

The product is stable. 

Our entire platform is on the Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and BlazeMeter’s ability to handle various load requirements seamlessly has been beneficial.

We have used JMeter and Gatling in the past.

The platform was easy to configure and integrate into our existing pipelines.

We implemented the platform with the help of our in-house DevOps team. 

The product pricing is reasonable. 

I recommend BlazeMeter for its ease of setup and integration into continuous testing pipelines.

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

I like the BlazeMeter extension. It is a very good expansion. With it, you can record any type of performance script scenario, and you can generate in a JMeter script, Selenium, et cetera. That is a very good feature. 

If you want to do that, it is used mostly on performance testing, API Mocking, et cetera. The API Mocking capabilities are great.

For performance, it is a very good tool and we don't have too much to do. 

It is UI-based and you can select the load generator and it is auto-scalable. You can select the origin where we want to generate load from it. We can select the bandwidth, for example. 

It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials.

The solution is stable.

I cannot recall coming across any missing features.

The reporting capabilities could be improved.

It would be ideal if it could incorporate tools such as APM or Dynatrace.

I've been using the solution for six years. It's been a while. 

We have found the solution to be stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

For the paid version, we have our own technical support for BlazeMeter. They are helpful.

The cost is a bit high for the Indian consumer. For a European or American user, the solution may not seem that expensive.

We are just customers and end-users.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities in general.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.