We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Telerik Test Studio 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."We find the load testing feature valuable."
"Due to process automation, I don't have to prepare reports, making it the perfect solution."
"The reporting features are really good. There's a lot less latency than other solutions."
"I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"The distributed load testing is very good with Apache JMeter."
"JMeter is user-friendly, and that's a notable advantage of JVTech. It's straightforward and easy to use, unlike some other load testing tools, making it very easy to understand."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is being able to launch many requests and scheduling simulating human interactions with the application."
"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."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"If the solution was GUI based, I believe that it would be more versatile."
"What needs improvement in Apache JMeter is the very high load requirements when you want to scale it beyond certain thresholds. For example, small to mid-range testing is very easily done with Apache JMeter, but if you scale and increase the load, then it would be a problem because the tool consumes a lot of resources, probably because Apache JMeter provides an enriched UI experience, so it consumes a lot of memory and requires high CPU usage. This means you have to manage your infrastructure, or else you'll have high overhead expenses. As Apache JMeter is a heavyweight tool, that is an area for improvement, though I'm unsure if Apache can do something about it because it could be a result of the way it's architected. What I'd like to see from Apache JMeter in the future is for it to transition to the cloud, as a lot of cloud technologies emerge around the globe, and a lot of people prefer cloud-based solutions or cloud-native tools. Even if a company has a legacy system, it's still possible to transition to the cloud. I've worked with a company that was an on-premise company that moved to the cloud and became cloud-native. If Apache JMeter could transition to the cloud, similar to k6, then it could help lessen the intense resource consumption that's currently happening in Apache JMeter."
"JMeter's reporting is extremely rudimentary. The fundamental reporting mechanisms need to be drastically improved. It doesn't utilize an automatic session management mechanism or methods other tools use like parsing cookies and variables. Everything needs to be done manually. There's no automation."
"It will be much easier, and beneficial for the individual to run it on their own machines rather than having a high-end infrastructure, more CPUs, or more memory that has been consumed by Apache JMeter."
"Because so much is being done these days with authentication processes, a better system for either getting bearer tokens or some kind of token-based authentication prior to executing APIs would benefit the product. It is there, and you can do things. It is just not real clean at this point. There should be a better authentication process for JMeter or some automation or better guidelines for gaining and utilizing tokens on the fly."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"You really need a technical team in order to really utilize the product."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 14th in Load Testing Tools with 5 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. 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 Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and UiPath Test Suite. See our Apache JMeter vs. Telerik Test Studio report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.
