We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and IBM Rational Functional Tester based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"For me, the best part is that we can graphically see the test result at runtime. It helps us understand the behavior of the application during all stages of the test."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"The stability is 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."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"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."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2. 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 IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, HCL OneTest, Selenium HQ and Worksoft Certify.
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.
