We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and BrowserStack based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"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."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"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."
"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."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"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."
"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."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while BrowserStack is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and SmartBear LoadNinja, whereas BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and SmartBear TestComplete. See our BlazeMeter vs. BrowserStack report.
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.
