We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"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."
"The stability is good."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"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 features of Tricentis Tosca are the ease of use, you do not need to program if you do not want to."
"It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority."
"The model-based scriptless automation is the most valuable feature because it needs less maintenance as compared to script-based automation."
"This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated."
"You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues."
"It is easy to maintain and easy to automate. No coding skills are required to automate. It is also easy in terms of transferring knowledge and skills. Many of my team members shifted over the past one and a half years, and there was no big issue with respect to knowledge sharing. It is a good tool that enables me to re-automate my scripts and update my scripts as quickly as possible. Looking at the amount of rework and maintenance activity that we had done for our scripts, it might have been a nightmare with some other scripting tool."
"The reporting is really nice."
"Very user-friendly and the low code automation is really helpful."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"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."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
"Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability."
"I would like a better user interface."
"The Test Management options are still weak - improvement is outlined, but not yet visible. I"
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
BlazeMeter is ranked 6th in Test Automation Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Test Automation Tools with 96 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and SmartBear TestComplete. See our BlazeMeter vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
