We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and BlazeMeter based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Since JMeter has limited scalability, BlazeMeter is the clear winner in this comparison.
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"Very user-friendly and easy to use."
"I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jenkins and the reporting."
"It is scalable. You can scale up to 1,000 users in JMeter. If you can put up four slave servers, you can easily ramp up to 1,000 users."
"It gives accurate results and recommendations that we can implement to enhance the performance of websites."
"We find the load testing feature valuable."
"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."
"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."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"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."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"If the solution was GUI based, I believe that it would be more versatile."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"The solution could use some sort of educational features to offer tips and hints to help users navigate it better. They should improve the manuals and help files."
"The UI needs some work. The first time I used JMeter, I couldn't record the full scenario to mimic the user experience. Since then, they have introduced some plugins and a third-party tool called BlazeMeter."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"Its reporting could be improved. There should be a better visual representation. That would be helpful for easy consumption of the reports."
"It should start supporting the presentation layer. It currently provides performance testing specifically at the application and API level. It can be extended to the presentation layer, which includes mainly Angular and React frameworks. It should also be easy to use and easy to train people."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement."
"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 and stuff."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while BlazeMeter is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and ReadyAPI, whereas BlazeMeter is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BrowserStack and Perfecto. See our Apache JMeter vs. BlazeMeter report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.