BlazeMeter vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

Perforce and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Perforce is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0, while SmartBear is ranked #28. Perforce holds a 0.6% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 94% of Perforce users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

BlazeMeter

Read 49 BlazeMeter reviews

4,544 Views
409 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

529 Views
476 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

BlazeMeter

CrossBrowserTesting

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

BlazeMeter and CrossBrowserTesting compete in testing services. BlazeMeter shows strong performance testing abilities, while CrossBrowserTesting excels in real-browser compatibility.

Features: BlazeMeter's top features include integration with CI/CD pipelines, real-time reporting, and scalable performance testing. CrossBrowserTesting offers diverse browser and device combinations, live testing, and strong real-world compatibility.

Room for Improvement: BlazeMeter could improve in easing setup complexity, expanding support documentation, and offering enhanced browser testing features. CrossBrowserTesting could enhance performance analytics, reduce test execution time, and expand integrations with cloud services.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BlazeMeter provides easy deployment with solid integration and reliable support. CrossBrowserTesting offers a user-friendly setup and responsive support, catering to quick deployment needs and immediate assistance.

Pricing and ROI: BlazeMeter offers competitive, scalable pricing tailored for performance-heavy needs, with a focus on long-term ROI. CrossBrowserTesting provides a cost-effective solution for browser compatibility, delivering substantial value for frequent cross-browser testing requirements.

To learn more, read our detailed BlazeMeter vs. CrossBrowserTesting Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BlazeMeter vs. CrossBrowserTesting

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

10th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (2nd), Load Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (5th)

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 0.6%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Manoj Raghavendra

Director at SMKR Consultancy LLP

Provides global load simulations without managing infrastructure and offers built-in reporting features

BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for. The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use. Additionally, if there is no host in preferred locations such as some Asian or Middle Eastern countries, it might not be convenient to use BlazeMeter.

Read full review

CharlesNetshivhera

Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable

We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."

"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."

"It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company."

"There is a repository of all the scripts that we have created. You can go back and compare tests to see what the tests looked like. If I want to go and compare something with whatever happened six months or one year back, I can do that."

"One key advantage of using BlazeMeter is that it does not require me to manage my own infrastructure."

"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."

"It is focused on concurrency testing, which has been especially beneficial for us. Their previous experiences had caused major setbacks."

"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."

More BlazeMeter pros

"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."

"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."

"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."

"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."

"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

Cons

"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."

"BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for."

"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."

"BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for."

"BlazeMeter does not provide integration with the Aternity tool."

"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."

"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."

"Having more options for customization would be helpful."

More BlazeMeter cons

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."

"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."

"The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."

"The overall product is less costly than our past solutions, so we've absolutely saved money."

"The product isn't cheap, but it isn't the most expensive on the market. During our proof of concept, we discovered that you get what you pay for; we found a cheaper solution we tested to be full of bugs. Therefore, we are willing to pay the higher price tag for the quality BlazeMeter offers."

"I rate the product's price two on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. The solution is not expensive."

"It's consumption-based pricing but with a ceiling. They're called CVUs, or consumption variable units. We can use API testing, GUI testing, and test data, but everything gets converted into CVUs, so we are free to use the platform in its entirety without getting bogged down by a license for certain testing areas. We know for sure how much we are going to spend."

"The product pricing is reasonable."

"My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product."

More BlazeMeter pricing and cost advice

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?

Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...

See all answers

What do you like most about BlazeMeter?

It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BlazeMeter?

BlazeMeter's pricing depends on the type of account used. They offer multiple account types, with cost variations based on features accessible under each account.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Apache JMeter vs BlazeMeter

Compared 41% of the time

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs BlazeMeter

Compared 15% of the time

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs BlazeMeter

Compared 5% of the time

k6 Open Source vs BlazeMeter

Compared 5% of the time

More BlazeMeter Competitors

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 63% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BlazeMeter

August 2025

Download BlazeMeter product report

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

August 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud

No data available

Overview

BlazeMeter ensures delivery of high-performance software by enabling DevOps teams to quickly and easily run open-source-based performance tests against any mobile app, website or API at massive scale to validate performance at every stage of software delivery.

The rapidly growing BlazeMeter community has more than 100,000 developers and includes prominent global brands such as Adobe, Atlassian, Gap, NBC Universal, Pfizer and Walmart as customers. Founded in 2011, the company is headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif., with its research and development in Tel Aviv.

Perforce

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Buyer's Guide

BlazeMeter vs. CrossBrowserTesting

July 2025

Free Report: BlazeMeter vs. CrossBrowserTesting

Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. CrossBrowserTesting and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BlazeMeter vs. CrossBrowserTesting 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.