We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and ReadyAPI based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"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 a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"The Excel sheet feature is good."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"When we are doing API testing we have found it to be very efficient to receive results. Additionally, you are able to do tests directly from the API."
"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."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"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."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
"ReadyAPI could improve by having dynamic validation information."
"Lacking flexibility of adding more custom verification for security testing."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 33 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.6. 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 ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and RadView WebLOAD, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One. See our BlazeMeter vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.
