We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter 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 metrics part of it and the ability to write your custom code to do some specific tests in the performance testing space are the most valuable features."
"This solution is easier to use than any other tool in the market; there is not even a requirement to learn a lot of scripting in order to use it."
"JMeter is easy to use for a user who doesn't have too much knowledge of programming or certain languages."
"Apache JMeter is well-known and widely used among developers, particularly on popular developer forums. While it may not have the most user-friendly interface, it offers strong support through official manuals and various articles from companies providing load testing services. The tool is free, has a substantial community, and serves as a fundamental choice for testers, especially those new to performance testing. While other tools like K6 may be more developer-oriented, JMeter's affordability and accessibility make it suitable for those without extensive performance testing experience."
"User-friendly and open source."
"It is open source as well as relatively extendable. It allows us to extend and add additional functionality and features. Its deployment is also very easy."
"The features that I appreciate are quite basic. It is easy to ramp up the threads and start calling the application. A lot of connectors can already be found within Apache JMeter, but we are not using the entire set because the integration between the customers and platform is based on HTTP. We are just going to produce lots of HTTP sequences."
"It's a free tool."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"It's easy to implement."
"Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"Because so much is being done these days with authentication processes, a better system for either getting bearer tokens or some kind of token-based authentication prior to executing APIs would benefit the product. It is there, and you can do things. It is just not real clean at this point. There should be a better authentication process for JMeter or some automation or better guidelines for gaining and utilizing tokens on the fly."
"The memory utilization in JMeter is very poor."
"The UI needs some work. The first time I used JMeter, I couldn't record the full scenario to mimic the user experience. Since then, they have introduced some plugins and a third-party tool called BlazeMeter."
"JMeter output reports can be difficult to understand without training."
"The solution could use some sort of educational features to offer tips and hints to help users navigate it better. They should improve the manuals and help files."
"Apache JMeter could use improvement in reporting. Currently, it isn't easy to generate reports in PDF format. While receiving reports in PDF format is possible, it requires a lot of customization. Additionally, when comparing the load test to others solutions it could improve."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner we can go from the UI and we can configure it. There is no such feature in Apache JMeter. There should be UI-based recording history or logs."
"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"Lacking flexibility of adding more custom verification for security testing."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
"There is room for improvement in ReadyAPI, particularly in the user interface."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". 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". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test, SmartBear TestComplete and Parasoft SOAtest. See our Apache JMeter vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Performance 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.
