We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Micro Focus Silk Performer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The metrics part of it and the ability to write your custom code to do some specific tests in the performance testing space are the most valuable features."
"I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"The biggest thing I liked about it is that there is a huge user base out there, and being shareware and being Apache, if I have any question on how to get something done, I get 18 different answers. Out of those, there would be at least a few good approaches for what I was trying to do. So, the support system out there is most valuable."
"User-friendly and open source."
"It is cost-effective and simple to use."
"Apache JMeter is quite flexible."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"A good monitoring tool, simple to script and easy to configure."
"In this tool, automation in general is almost non-existent. Everything is done manually."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"We're like the solution to be more user-friendly."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner we can go from the UI and we can configure it. There is no such feature in Apache JMeter. There should be UI-based recording history or logs."
"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."
"JMeter should be more stable. Every time there is a new release coming up, a lot of its older functionalities or the new functionalities that are brought in are not very well-documented. It should be documented properly, and there should be proper use cases."
"If the solution was GUI based, I believe that it would be more versatile."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"If you have a large amount of data, the solution can struggle."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 33 reviews while Micro Focus Silk Performer is ranked 9th in Load Testing Tools with 1 review. Apache JMeter is rated 7.4, while Micro Focus Silk Performer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free, scalable tool that's good for checking backend services". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Micro Focus Silk Performer writes "Scripting and basic test executions are good features; configuring the workload for tests is easy". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, BlazeMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional and Tricentis NeoLoad, whereas Micro Focus Silk Performer is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional and Micro Focus LoadRunner Cloud.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.
