We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Selenium HQ 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 has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"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."
"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."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"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 supports multiple processes, which is great."
"I like its simplicity."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"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 reporting capabilities could be improved."
"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"The reporting part can be better."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our BlazeMeter vs. Selenium HQ 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.
