We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Visual Studio Test Professional 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 can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"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 has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software."
"The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
"The initial setup is easy. It's easy to configure."
"Visual Studio is the easiest to use."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available."
"It's great for the development of .NET."
"Visual Studio is an exemplary integrated development environment that stands out due to its exceptional features. It allows for the seamless selection of the appropriate programming language for the specific development tasks at hand. This facilitates a swift and effortless transition between languages, providing a highly efficient development experience."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"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 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."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"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."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
"Sometimes, the product is too complex to use."
"The interface should be made attractive."
"The data flow can be improved."
"The server that we use is very slow so that is concerning for us."
"It could be available for multiple platforms and other operating systems like Mac with a native port."
"The solution's documentation could be improved for beginners."
"The documents on the Microsoft website are not very useful, and they ought to make it easier to find answers."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
BlazeMeter is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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 Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One. See our BlazeMeter vs. Visual Studio Test Professional 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.
