BlazeMeter Reviews

My main use case for BlazeMeter revolves around working on a web application with lots of data on the backend. I use BlazeMeter for performance testing, load testing, and endurance testing to ensure that any heavy load on our website is easily handled. I utilize BlazeMeter to determine what configuration I may need to enhance, such as horizontal or vertical integration, and I gather data on how it performs under the proper user load I send to BlazeMeter for specific APIs and pages.

A specific example of how I have used BlazeMeter for performance testing involves an e-commerce application in my current company that sells clothes. During the recent Black Friday, I noticed an increased load, and to prepare, I conducted spike testing and endurance testing. These tests help ensure our website can handle sudden load increases without crashing, especially when I tested various scenarios using BlazeMeter before the Black Friday event, confirming that everything functioned properly despite the heavy user traffic.

BlazeMeter offers numerous features, but the ones that stand out to me include its ease of use, predefined configurations for high-scale performance testing that can be executed quickly, AI-powered testing, scriptless testing, and accurate API testing with an auto-correction plugin to ensure the accuracy of the tests performed.

While I cannot pinpoint a single favorite feature, I find myself using parallel execution frequently because this feature allows multiple tests to be run at once, greatly enhancing my workflow. BlazeMeter effectively handles dependency in microservice architecture, for example, linking one API to another to manage response flows, such as the login and registration APIs, which flows efficiently through BlazeMeter.

BlazeMeter has positively impacted my organization by reducing the time required for testing due to its robust features that yield efficient results. Unlike JMeter, which has limitations on user simulations, BlazeMeter allows me to test any number of users, helping my e-commerce website manage unpredictable traffic loads effectively while delivering accurate results I can trust to improve my systems.

BlazeMeter meets my needs very well, but an area for improvement would be the ability to execute multiple projects simultaneously. I often have several projects that require performance testing, and being able to execute those tests for all projects at the same time would be a fantastic feature.

Currently, my integration mostly involves Jenkins. With advancements like AI Cloud and GitHub Copilot, if BlazeMeter could automate integration across multiple pipelines and fetch the latest builds automatically, it would significantly enhance my experience.

I have been using BlazeMeter for around six months, and before that, I used JMeter. I have knowledge of both tools, but I notice some challenges I face in JMeter that are overcome by BlazeMeter, so I primarily use BlazeMeter.

BlazeMeter is incredibly stable and delivers accurate results consistently.

BlazeMeter provides excellent scalability, allowing me to adjust according to my needs without any issues.

Customer support for BlazeMeter is commendable, offering 24/7 assistance. Whenever I reach out via email, I receive a speedy response, which is a crucial aspect for any tool.

Previously, I used JMeter, an open-source tool, but I switched due to its limitations. For example, it only supported a limited number of users, and its results were often inaccurate. By using BlazeMeter, I overcome these issues effectively.

Before utilizing BlazeMeter, I need to set up configurations, including ramp-up and down times and determining the actual user load and time period for the load to be sent to the system. I test APIs by sending data directly through the API or performing load testing using my UI/UX pages that are API integrated. After execution, I receive accurate reports that help me identify what resources, such as CPU or RAM, I need to increase, focusing on response time and throughput to inform my decisions on whether horizontal or vertical scaling is necessary.

BlazeMeter has positively affected my ROI, significantly saving time, resources, and money. As a result of the time saved in testing, I can reduce my resources, and ultimately by streamlining my workflow, I can also decrease labor costs.

Regarding pricing, it is favorable compared to other tools, providing good value. The licensing is flexible, with options for one or two-year terms based on user requirements, and BlazeMeter occasionally offers discounts, which is excellent.

I recommend BlazeMeter to anyone looking to save time, money, and achieve accurate results with diverse features. I believe I have addressed all relevant points regarding BlazeMeter. I give this product a rating of 8.

I primarily use BlazeMeter for performance testing. I utilize the BlazeMeter plugin for recording, but not extensively for testing itself. 

I have recommended it to clients and used it once for a specific requirement when I needed to simulate higher loads.

One key advantage of using BlazeMeter is that it does not require me to manage my own infrastructure. It provides the ability to use hosts which are pre-deployed globally. Since BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter, it is beneficial for large-scale performance testing without infrastructure overhead. Moreover, some features like reporting are available out of the box in BlazeMeter.

BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for. The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use. 

Additionally, if there is no host in preferred locations such as some Asian or Middle Eastern countries, it might not be convenient to use BlazeMeter.

I used BlazeMeter for about a week for a specific requirement that involved a higher load.

BlazeMeter provides stability by removing the need to manage infrastructure, offering cloud-based operations instead.

BlazeMeter allows me to select hosts globally depending on the workload and has the capability to simulate a higher number of users compared to JMeter standalone.

I did not need to contact BlazeMeter's customer service as my usage was quite specific and clear, along with prior experience with JMeter.

Neutral

I have previously used JMeter extensively, and BlazeMeter was used once I addressed all the issues in JMeter and required higher load capabilities.

The initial setup with BlazeMeter is straightforward. The main challenge in performance testing lies more in script creation than in setup or execution.

I did not engage any external implementation team for BlazeMeter.

BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.

I have worked with other tools like LoadRunner and NeoLoad for performance testing.

If BlazeMeter offered a free version with limitations similar to JMeter, I would find it beneficial to avoid infrastructure concerns. 

I rate BlazeMeter at eight out of ten, due to not having used the most recent version.

I have started to work with Apache JMeter and BlazeMeter for performance testing. BlazeMeter has provided me with a vast platform for running performance tests via the cloud, allowing me to upload JMeter script files and execute performance tests based on my requirements.

BlazeMeter has provided me with a vast cloud platform to run JMeter script files, eliminating the need for storage or load providers. BlazeMeter integrates with JMeter via multiple plugins, which streamlines performance testing, test monitoring, and report sharing. It also generates random test data, such as credit card numbers, on the fly. This setup saves me time and effort.

BlazeMeter could improve by consolidating features into existing plugins instead of developing separate plugins for similar tasks. For instance, the extra CSV random dataset plugin could be integrated with a simple checkbox in the existing CSV dataset plugin to read files randomly. Such integration would simplify the processes.

I have worked with BlazeMeter on and off for the past four to five years, but I have been using it continuously for the past two months.

I would rate the stability of BlazeMeter as eight out of ten, indicating that it is a stable and reliable solution.

BlazeMeter is quite scalable, and I rate its scalability as nine out of ten.

The customer service is not available 24/7, which affects its rating. I would rate it as a seven because they respond once they are available.

Neutral

Before BlazeMeter, I was doing distributed load testing locally on my machine, which constrained my resources. BlazeMeter allowed me to handle loads beyond my local machine's capabilities.

The initial setup was straightforward, with BlazeMeter operational within minutes upon uploading the necessary files.

BlazeMeter's pricing depends on the type of account used. They offer multiple account types, with cost variations based on features accessible under each account.

I did not evaluate other products as I have already used BlazeMeter for multiple projects.

Based on my experience, I recommend BlazeMeter to others. Overall, I rate the solution as eight out of ten.

This solution is a big strategic piece for us. We wanted to replace the legacy performance testing capability with BlazeMeter's performance testing capability. That was our first use case. Now, it's a more strategic platform with GUI testing, API testing, mock services, service virtualization capability, and test data capabilities. We aren't using everything at the moment, but that is the strategic intent.

We faced some challenges in getting multiple teams to adopt BlazeMeter. This was a big transformation for us. We used LoadRunner for 10 years, so changing to BlazeMeter was definitely a bit challenging. Organizational change management was involved. We were able to use other online resources to learn how to use BlazeMeter. There was resistance from some teams.

This solution is used by 24 teams across 13 divisions. There are about 75 engineers using BlazeMeter, but usage is higher. This is a hybrid solution.

The range of test tools that BlazeMeter provides is amazing. There are more than 18 tools, which gives us freedom of choice.

It's very important to us that BlazeMeter is a cloud-based and open-source testing platform. It's critical for our organization because we are increasingly moving from on-premises application hosting to cloud-native hosting.

BlazeMeter has definitely improved the productivity of our organization, especially because of the integration features. Engineering productivity has improved because people are able to use the tool of their choice. This increases our delivery velocity.

From the operational-benefits perspective, we save infrastructure costs because we don't have to host this massive product on infrastructure. We also save operational costs. We don't need a big team because it's a SaaS platform.

It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies. 

The solution is completely built on an open-source stack. Before performance testing, we used JMeter. There's flexibility in choosing Gatling, Locust, Taurus, or other open-source technologies. We're able to attract good talent in the market. They like open-source because it's lightweight, accessible, and quick. That's been a strong point.

We integrated user access management, so it's easy for consumers to actually use it. It has great reporting features and integrations. It can connect to AppDynamics, Dynatrace, and Splunk. 

Another great feature is that it meets the various maturity levels in our organization. We still have manual-based testing, and there are some teams that are very engineering and code focused. BlazeMeter helps meet all those maturity levels.

For example, a manual tester who wants to get into automation can use the scriptless feature. Even business people can use the record and playback function and record the business process. That is captured into JMeter and Selenium scripts, and they can continue executing that.

The solution enables the creation of test data that can be used both for the performance and functional testing of any application. Currently, we aren't using the test data feature in BlazeMeter.

It took us a year to realize the benefits because we had to do the design work and the network enablement piece for teams to start using it at that scale.

BlazeMeter helps bridge Agile and CoE teams. We define CoE as the center of enablement, not a center of excellence. We don't have central teams. We use the hub and spoke model. The hub is basically the central enablement team. We provide BlazeMeter as a service in the bank, and we manage, maintain, and govern it, but individual teams have federated autonomy.

The solution helps us implement shift-left testing. We're still in that stage, and we have various maturity levels in our organization. We have between 6,000 and 7,000 engineers. Out of that, around 2,000 are manual testers. The maturity level across those many thousands of engineers is varied. Some teams have definitely embedded shift left, and BlazeMeter is good at that. They can use YAML files and start shifting left. That means the developers are able to have YAML definitions in their code to do smaller performance load tests.

We use the solution's scriptless testing functionality. We have many testers who use scriptless testing now. The record and playback function is also one of the key aspects.

The manual testers are definitely getting more confident that they can start moving toward automation. People are finding that the existing test automation helps to build their test cases quicker. They struggled with JMeter as a tool. They had to learn various nuances. With scriptless testing, recording, and playback, they don't have to worry about that.

BlazeMeter definitely decreased our test cycle times. During each cycle, we're saving between one to two hours. We enabled integration between BlazeMeter and AppDynamics, so people don't have to log into multiple tools to do their analysis. BlazeMeter provides a single pane of glass to do the analysis.

It essentially saves days in the sprint because they would execute a test, then go into AppDynamics, the SCOM, or the IIS logs. To fetch the IIS logs, they would have to wait for the operations team to give them access.

The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved. Right now, they have the UI testing capability, which provides the browsers. They made Safari available, which is amazing. We're able to test on Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. We want the capability to test Chrome on Windows, Chrome on Mac OS, and the capability to test Chrome on Android OS and iOS.

I have used this solution for more than two years.

The solution is quite stable. There were some issues that impacted us a couple of months ago. There was an incident in which they did an upgrade, and we weren't able to execute the load for four hours.

It's absolutely scalable. We have plans to increase usage.

Customer support is excellent. I'm very impressed with them because of the kind of queries we're raising. The usage has also gone up from the initial 100 users to over 800 users. Support responds within two hours because they're based in Israel and the US.

Positive

We previously used an HP product and we used LoadRunner for performance testing. 

We chose BlazeMeter because of the open-source technology. LoadRunner Performance Center is a proprietary tool. We had specialized engineers just on LoadRunner. They were expensive and difficult to get in the market. Key man dependency was a risk, so we wanted a platform with flexible tools and scalability. We also wanted a future-proof solution that would still be useful for the existing traditional tool set.

The SaaS account creation was very easy. Workspace creation was very easy. It's self-service, so those aspects were simple. Even the on-premises deployment is all Docker based. It's pretty advanced. They are clustering based, so having a cluster makes it easier. We didn't have an on-premises clustering solution like Kubernetes, so we had to go with the bare-bones Docker image implementation. We didn't have to do a lot of engineering because it's all self-service. 

It took one year for our internal design to be done, approved, and implemented. The design involved allowing all of the connections from BlazeMeter as a load engine sitting on non-production infrastructure and applications. The network connectivity was done in one year. It was a massive implementation. We have 16 platforms, which can be considered mini-business units. We have our securities, treasury, retail banking, and internal corporate services.

The SaaS deployment took one day. They created the account and gave us access. My team was able to create workspaces. The on-premises deployment took a few hours. We went through all the connectivity and design. To complete the on-premises setup, we had to run a bunch of commands. Running the commands was easy and quick, but downloading hundreds of GBs of images took hours.

Two engineers were involved in the deployment. For the on-premises deployment, their role was to follow the instructions to complete the setup. After that, they had to verify if the setup was correct and then do end-to-end verification. A test was created in the SaaS portal, and we could choose the on-premises location and execute it to get results in the test portal.

Maintenance involves remediating vulnerabilities. BlazeMeter itself was not vulnerable. A Log4j vulnerability came out in December last year. BlazeMeter was pretty quick to respond. We quickly worked with our cyber team and service management teams. We were happy that it wasn't vulnerable because JMeter is used in BlazeMeter. JMeter uses Java, and the older version of JMeter has Log4j binaries. We weren't using those versions. 

Our cyber team's direction was to get rid of those binaries if we weren't using them. The BlazeMeter team didn't have that policy, but they understood our stance. To address the risk, they upgraded and removed all of the old versions of JMeter from the platform. 

We have auto updates enabled in our system for SaaS and on-premises. Maintenance is very light for us because of the auto-update feature. We have a small team for maintenance, but we're focusing more on addressing the customer knowledge gap because new teams and people are using BlazeMeter within our bank now.

We're already seeing a return on investment.

We had the protection license for LoadRunner, but the annual maintenance cost was going to increase to a point where we could get BlazeMeter with the same annual cost. With BlazeMeter, we're saving around $50,000 annually on infrastructure costs by reducing our amount of servers by 50.

There's always the opportunity cost because the on-premises LoadRunner infrastructure had limited scope. We could never scale. Now, we're able to scale more and generate more load. For LoadRunner, we couldn't generate load for our SaaS instances or do geolocation testing. If we had to do that, we would have easily spent around $200,000 to $300,000.

With BlazeMeter, our return on investment for the opportunity cost is between $300,000 to $400,000.

It's consumption-based pricing but with a ceiling. They're called CVUs, or consumption variable units. We can use API testing, GUI testing, and test data, but everything gets converted into CVUs, so we are free to use the platform in its entirety without getting bogged down by a license for certain testing areas. We know for sure how much we are going to spend.

There's one additional component of dedicated IP. That was added for us because for SaaS and cloud-based applications, we wanted to use the SaaS but not the whole internet. Dedicated IPs are expensive, so that is charged separately.

We looked at about seven other solutions, including SmartBear, LoadNinja, and JMeter.

I would rate this solution a 10 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution for those who want to use it, but it depends on the need. My advice is that you can start using the tool immediately. There's no need to do POCs.

The intention of this tool is that people should uncover more and more in their testing. That means people should be doing more testing in an automated fashion, or they should just give a command to BlazeMeter, and it should execute test cases and give them some insight into whether something is wrong.

We want people to do more automation testing and move away from manual testing. That is the success criteria. That means that we are spending more on BlazeMeter, but that's a sign that we're doing more automation. Our operational expenditure isn't increasing because we still have a team to manage the BlazeMeter account and the on-premises setup.

Our intention isn't to save time. The ultimate goal is to increase the velocity and improve quality, which will happen if we uncover more defects early.

We use BlazeMeter for performance testing.

BlazeMeter helps us to easily scale up the products for performance testing and increases the scalability of the applications, which are outside of the corporate network.

The user interface is good. The multitask user and cloud missions testing are nice features.

The scalability features still need improvement. They have recently added dynamic user features, so we should evaluate that, which may enhance scalability. Storage capacity should be increased. 

There is a shared file repository with a limit of 999 file storage along with each payload, which is a maximum of fifty MB. That should be increased. When we run JMeter scripts in BlazeMeter, the BlazeMeter user interface does not recognize the property files we use in JMeter. This needs to be addressed.

I have been working with BlazeMeter for five years.

BlazeMeter's scalability features need improvement. They have added the dynamic user feature recently, and we should evaluate this feature for better scalability.

The technical support is very good. I would give them ten out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with LoadRunner and BlazeMeter simultaneously.

BlazeMeter's pricing is competitive but can be negotiable.

I have worked with LoadRunner simultaneously with BlazeMeter.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

My organization has BlazeMeter licenses and we do all of our performance integration on BlazeMeter. We're not working on continuous integration. We are mostly working on an agile workflow. We don't have a CI/CD pipeline as of now. 

The largest test I have executed is with 6,000 users. It provides the advantage of using any tool workflow or LoadRunner performance center. It's the enterprise version. If you are using plain packaging meters, not BlazeMeter, you have to grow your instances, either on cloud or on-prem or one of those particular places. You have to do the setup and activities, monitor the activities, and do the housekeeping on the server. 

There is a repository of all the scripts that we have created. You can go back and compare tests to see what the tests looked like. If I want to compare something with whatever happened six months or one year back, I can do that. 

We do a lot of extensive testing on multiple products. For example, I'm part of the ServiceNow Platform. We can work with multiple products, multiple features, and multiple add-ons. So we require a lot of extensive testing activity and over the years, it has improved a lot. It has more protocols. It's catering to more technologies now. 

You can create pretty realistic scenarios by bringing multiple scripts into one test. You can make a realistic load.

The reporting and analytics capabilities helped identify performance bottlenecks. It has features where you can integrate JMeter into your plugins, which you can use to integrate with the test and you can do real-time monitoring. We have done that. Right now, within our team, we have a Grafana dashboard, which helps us do real-time monitoring of tests.

The support could be better. It's still not up to the mark. You have to raise tickets and they take too long to respond. In our industry, time is money. I can't wait for them to get back to me with a solution that may not even help me out.

The underlying product is JMeter and JMeter needs to support more protocols, especially now that we come into an AI-heavy reality. If you have scenarios that require testing on AI, there's a limitation. Ultimately, if this doesn't change, people would have to do activities manually.

I've used the solution for five to six years at this point. 

We haven't had a problem with stability. We haven't seen any initial glitches. 

Scaling is not a problem. You can scale up to 10,000 or 15,000 users, and it's not a problem, provided you have the licenses to do so.

Support could be faster. 

Neutral

I have used other solutions. BlazeMeters scores in a lot of areas over others. However, when it comes to performance, there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. BlazeMeter is easier to operate, which is why many organizations use it. That said, tools like LoadRunner and Mule also have their own advantages. 

The solution is easy to work with. Anybody can set it up. There is some maintenance needed since you are creating automation scripts and all automation scripts require some maintenance.

We have witnessed ROI in terms of performance. I have a client that does a lot of business online, and their website is very image-heavy. They made some changes, deployed it, and it crashed twice. The outage was for a little over an hour, which doesn't seem to be much, but when a company operates 24/7, it ends up incurring losses when crashes happen. They also had to compensate for the loss to users based on their agreement structure. If you can reduce the time on issues like that by doing heavy-duty performance testing, you can make a lot of changes and tune things and avoid outages. 

They have very competitive licensing agreements. I'm not sure of the client pricing; however, I'm sure it works out to be pretty cheap.

We're BlazeMeter partners. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Most of my company's use cases related to the tool stem from the needs of our customers. Basically, my company deals in the area of using the tool for mimicking contact center-related scenarios. When a customer calls an agent, the tool helps check whether the agent answers the call.

Basically, my company wanted to use BlazeMeter to act as a trigger for around 1,05,000 users who communicate with each other. For the aforementioned aspect, the first option was to choose between NeoLoad and LoadRunner, while the second option was to choose BlazeMeter, which runs on the cloud. With Blazemeter, it was easy for my company to create a script and then trigger it.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good. Users can schedule BlazeMeter to run, especially when the need to build a new application comes up since it allows them to manage and know the performance parameters easily.

For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective. BlazeMeter should provide its users with a seamless experience in the area of programming. The tool should be made in such a way that in whatever scenario a need arises for it, new users should be able to use it without difficulty. It will be better if BlazeMeter can handle call scenarios using behavior-driven development, allowing technical and non-technical people to understand the tool.

The technical support team's turnaround time or response time is high, making it one of the product's shortcomings that requires improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three and a half years. I am a user of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The scalability of BlazeMeter is good. The scalability of BlazeMeter is good. As BlazeMeter is a tool that allows me to trigger over 1,00,000 deployment-wise, I consider its scalability to be good.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Around five or six people in my company use BlazeMeter.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience with LoadRunner and TAF.

I rate the setup phase of BlazeMeter a seven and a half on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup process and ten is an easy setup phase.

BlazeMeter can be deployed in three to four minutes, especially if the scripts and artifacts are ready, as users may only need to push the ready artifacts into their environments to trigger the deployment process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product. The pricing part of BlazeMeter is fine, in my opinion. BlazeMeter is not a super expensive product for corporate businesses, considering that the product has evolved into a much more stable software.

Against BlazeMeter, my company had evaluated other options like NeoLoad and Visual Studio. Though all the options evaluated by my company were okay products in the market, BlazeMeter offers a more stable product. When using BlazeMeter, my company can get support and figure out areas where we lag through Google. BlazeMeter has a strong customer base.

BlazeMeter offers options like test scope that provide visibility of what a user does. Moreover, the option provides users with a crystal clear outline of every step, which consists of things like what the request is for a particular response.

Considering its load-testing capabilities, I recommend BlazeMeter to those who plan to use it. It's a good tool that anyone can use either in their production environment or before entering the production phase. The tool performs well even with real traffic while providing good scalability options to its users.

I rate the overall tool a seven and a half out of ten.

BlazeMeter is user-friendly and excellent. My company prefers the licensed version of BlazeMeter, which I occasionally use for scripting and designing on the CentOS site, specifically for creating real-world scenarios.

In LoadRunner, we currently cannot create realistic user load behavior as effectively.

I use BlazeMeter occasionally, depending on the project. It's not used for everything but when necessary, especially with JMeter, for specific testing scenarios. So, my use cases depend on and vary according to the project. 

In load testing, BlazeMeter is utilized to create realistic user behavior. It's particularly friendly for web LoadRunner users, providing proper pacing and timing control. 

Moreover, it allows for comprehensive control over user behavior across scripts, such as ramp-up and steady-state phases, which is crucial for conducting incremental load tests and more. This level of control isn't as easily achievable with other tools, but with JMeter and BlazeMeter, it's possible.

Incremental load testing is a type of test you can perform with JMeter. It's a technique that isn't straightforward without BlazeMeter. BlazeMeter facilitates this process.

In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. 

BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally.

This global simulation capability is a significant advantage of holding a cloud license with BlazeMeter.

We also tried the ShiftLeft testing approach with BlazeMeter.

An area for improvement could be enhancing BlazeMeter's integration with automation scripts. 

It would be beneficial if BlazeMeter could support automation frameworks more effectively, including the use of Selenium scripts for both manual and automated load testing.

Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options. A lot of products are coming out, and BlazeMeter pricing is a factor. 

For example, LoadStorm by Neustar is integrated with built-in APMs. It won't capture all server stats, but it will collect the minimum important aspects – CPU consumption, utilization rate, and how much a single server is being stressed. If BlazeMeter offered similar functionality, it would be fantastic.

I started using it almost four years ago and continue to use it as needed.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. It's good. But one suggestion – people tend to rate based on cost these days. Because of that pricing, there are a lot of other new technologies on the market. That's why some people integrate BlazeMeter with an Application Performance Monitor (APM) tool, like Elastic Search or Elastic module. You can pull anything, even CPU utilization or memory usage, by installing agents.

It's actually really good.  

BlazeMeter is a scalable product. It's user-friendly and easy to operate, which I find appealing.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

I used Micro Focus LoadRunner. I transitioned from my previous company to a different company. In my previous company, they used LoadRunner for customer projects, with a license for around 500 users.

I've faced a lot of issues with LoadRunner. Even with proper Java configuration, it throws exceptions when I run the first couple of servers. Because of that, I had to use a different VM and install everything from scratch. After that, things worked smoothly with BlazeMeter.

Additionally, I utilize JMeter for several products and Webber out of curiosity.

The setup process for BlazeMeter is simple.

The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs. However, Neustar has more reasonable pricing. 

Most people don't prefer Neustar, but it is a good solution. 

I specialize in load testing, so I use both LoadRunner and BlazeMeter in parallel. 

I've previously worked with other tools like Neustar, where we were able to simulate load similarly. A noteworthy aspect of these tools is the ability to integrate automation scripts for load testing, which enhances their utility.

Neustar is actually replacing LoadRunner in our current environment. If we want to do both automation and load testing, I would choose Nustar. We can create Selenium scripts directly in Neustar, and automation engineers can use Selenium to create scripts that can then be called within Neustar.

BlazeMeter meets our needs well. It performs admirably for our purposes.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution to other users. 

We deliver it to the clients about the reports etc.

We have clients for whom we are upgrading their applications from old versions to new ones. Initially, we conduct assessments to compare the performance of the old applications with the new ones. For example, we might upgrade an application from a desktop environment to a web application. After the upgrade, we demonstrate how the new application handles load across the front end, API, and database. For this purpose, we use performance testing tools to showcase the improvements.

It is focused on concurrency testing, which has been especially beneficial for us. Their previous experiences had caused major setbacks. 

The pricing is high because the advanced version comes with different features. Unlike JMeter, which offers a free version, BlazeMeter requires you to upgrade to a higher tier to access those advanced features.

BlazeMeter comes with a cost, so our client must agree. We've settled for the basic plan, which limited our ability to explore the higher versions. This is one drawback, especially since JMeter already provides many features that are out of the box. However, a positive aspect of BlazeMeter is that it offers various options for capturing different formats, such as JSON, XML, etc.

I have been using BlazeMeter for seven months.

It is stable. It depends on the client's requirements. There's no hard-n-fast rule. We have multiple clients, and when they request it, we perform the testing for them. It's done once a week or once a month, depending on the needs. Unlike KN automation, it's not a regular process. We conduct performance testing primarily for assessment purposes and system improvements based on client requirements.

It is scalable but distributed, and everything comes with a price. We haven't explored much but expect to explore in the future.

We are around five to six people using BlazeMeter in our organization.

We are experiencing some delays with BlazeMeter, as running or executing tests takes a bit of time. For example, running a test with a hundred clicks for a conference user takes approximately twenty minutes. This is one of the issues we're facing. We're exporting from BlazeMeter and importing the test into JMeter for the KN to address this. 

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

We switched to BlazeMeter because of issues related to proxy handling in JMeter. BlazeMeter is more reliable in managing proxy errors, which was a significant reason for our transition. It also supports custom configurations, allowing you to define your own ports, etc. Additionally, BlazeMeter provides multiple options for recording and storing test scripts, which can be easily converted to UI or GUI formats. These features were the primary reasons for our switch to BlazeMeter.

The initial setup is not difficult. There is ready documentation and some videos to guide you.

It is a bit pricey, especially if you're primarily interested in its recording and script conversion features. However, you'll need to opt for the higher-priced plans to access advanced features like scalability and distribution, as these features aren't included in the basic version. Additionally, the resources available in the basic plan are limited compared to the higher tiers.

Report-wise, everything is good. However, the execution time is slightly higher compared to other tools.  Everything is consistent regarding recording, and I haven't encountered any bugs. However, the execution time is inconsistent. Sometimes, when I run the same script at different times, it takes longer to execute.

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

The solution’s most valuable feature is the dashboard.

BlazeMeter does not provide integration with the Aternity tool. The solution has the capability to work with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, and New Relic. However, it does not have the option to integrate with Aternity.

I have been using BlazeMeter for the last one and a half years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Around 800 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is straightforward and not time-consuming. It's easy to upload all scripts and everything we do on-premises to BlazeMeter. It is also easy to prepare whatever scenario we need.

We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution.

Around 1,500 technical staff are needed for the solution’s deployment and maintenance. We mainly use BlazeMeter for performance testing and to generate the load from multiple locations. The automation and manual testing teams can also use the same tool for their automation testing or manual testing. So, BlazeMeter could be a single platform for multiple teams.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.