We performed a comparison between Bitbar and BlazeMeter based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"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."
"With the help of the Mock Services, we are overcoming everything. Wherever we are facing issues, whether they will be long term or temporary, by implementing the Mock Services we can bypass the faulty components that are not needed for our particular testing."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while BlazeMeter is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". 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". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
