We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"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."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"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."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Load Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0. 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 Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and RadView WebLOAD, whereas Tricentis Flood is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad. See our BlazeMeter vs. Tricentis Flood report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.