We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and SmartBear TestComplete 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 supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"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."
"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."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The product has many features."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"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."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"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 seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"The integration tools could be better."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 70 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while SmartBear TestComplete 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our BlazeMeter vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.