We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Perforce, Micro Focus and others in Performance Testing Tools."The scripting ability is most valuable. It is easy to use. There is a UI, and you can go in there and figure those things out. After you've got a good set of tests, you basically have a scripted document that you can grab and execute in a pipeline. It is pretty quick to set up, and you can scale it and version control it."
"Apache JMeter is stable."
"The most valuable features are the ability to capture the entire traffic of particular pages and the proper readability of entire pages and entire APIs."
"It is easy to set up."
"It is very quick and user-friendly."
"JMeter is a free tool with a large user population, which comes in handy because we have a vast knowledge base to tap into when needed. It's also easier to hire consultants who know JMeter."
"We really appreciate that the solution comes with a live community, which continuously provided plugins and support protocols."
"This solution is easier to use than any other tool in the market; there is not even a requirement to learn a lot of scripting in order to use it."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"We're like the solution to be more user-friendly."
"We would like more documentation to be provided for the advanced level features that are available in this solution, in order to improve development."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"You really need a technical team in order to really utilize the product."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"The reports in Apache JMeter could improve."
"Its reporting could be improved. There should be a better visual representation. That would be helpful for easy consumption of the reports."
"It has some proxy-based dependencies which require specific proxies to be set up or disabled, which causes problems."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.4, while Silk Test is rated 7.6. 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 Silk Test writes "A stable solution with good scripting feature, but needs better scalability and a bigger pool of third-party contractors". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, BlazeMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis NeoLoad and ReadyAPI Performance, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
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.
