We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and HeadSpin 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."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."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"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."
"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."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
"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 performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within Runscope would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"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."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while HeadSpin is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while HeadSpin 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 HeadSpin writes "It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas HeadSpin is most compared with Perfecto, BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, pCloudy and AWS Device Farm. See our BlazeMeter vs. HeadSpin 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.