BlazeMeter Reviews

The solution’s most valuable feature is the dashboard.

BlazeMeter does not provide integration with the Aternity tool. The solution has the capability to work with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, and New Relic. However, it does not have the option to integrate with Aternity.

I have been using BlazeMeter for the last one and a half years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Around 800 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is straightforward and not time-consuming. It's easy to upload all scripts and everything we do on-premises to BlazeMeter. It is also easy to prepare whatever scenario we need.

We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution.

Around 1,500 technical staff are needed for the solution’s deployment and maintenance. We mainly use BlazeMeter for performance testing and to generate the load from multiple locations. The automation and manual testing teams can also use the same tool for their automation testing or manual testing. So, BlazeMeter could be a single platform for multiple teams.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Most of my company's use cases related to the tool stem from the needs of our customers. Basically, my company deals in the area of using the tool for mimicking contact center-related scenarios. When a customer calls an agent, the tool helps check whether the agent answers the call.

Basically, my company wanted to use BlazeMeter to act as a trigger for around 1,05,000 users who communicate with each other. For the aforementioned aspect, the first option was to choose between NeoLoad and LoadRunner, while the second option was to choose BlazeMeter, which runs on the cloud. With Blazemeter, it was easy for my company to create a script and then trigger it.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good. Users can schedule BlazeMeter to run, especially when the need to build a new application comes up since it allows them to manage and know the performance parameters easily.

For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective. BlazeMeter should provide its users with a seamless experience in the area of programming. The tool should be made in such a way that in whatever scenario a need arises for it, new users should be able to use it without difficulty. It will be better if BlazeMeter can handle call scenarios using behavior-driven development, allowing technical and non-technical people to understand the tool.

The technical support team's turnaround time or response time is high, making it one of the product's shortcomings that requires improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three and a half years. I am a user of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The scalability of BlazeMeter is good. The scalability of BlazeMeter is good. As BlazeMeter is a tool that allows me to trigger over 1,00,000 deployment-wise, I consider its scalability to be good.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Around five or six people in my company use BlazeMeter.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience with LoadRunner and TAF.

I rate the setup phase of BlazeMeter a seven and a half on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup process and ten is an easy setup phase.

BlazeMeter can be deployed in three to four minutes, especially if the scripts and artifacts are ready, as users may only need to push the ready artifacts into their environments to trigger the deployment process.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product. The pricing part of BlazeMeter is fine, in my opinion. BlazeMeter is not a super expensive product for corporate businesses, considering that the product has evolved into a much more stable software.

Against BlazeMeter, my company had evaluated other options like NeoLoad and Visual Studio. Though all the options evaluated by my company were okay products in the market, BlazeMeter offers a more stable product. When using BlazeMeter, my company can get support and figure out areas where we lag through Google. BlazeMeter has a strong customer base.

BlazeMeter offers options like test scope that provide visibility of what a user does. Moreover, the option provides users with a crystal clear outline of every step, which consists of things like what the request is for a particular response.

Considering its load-testing capabilities, I recommend BlazeMeter to those who plan to use it. It's a good tool that anyone can use either in their production environment or before entering the production phase. The tool performs well even with real traffic while providing good scalability options to its users.

I rate the overall tool a seven and a half out of ten.

As our company wanted to use a cloud solution, we opted for BlazeMeter instead of an on-premises load generator.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports.

Integration with APM tools is an area where the product has certain shortcomings and needs improvement. Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved.

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year.

It has been stable so far as per our company's user's usage.

It is a scalable solution. My company does not have a high user load to deal with using the product.

Our company has not made many critical errors in getting technical support. Whatever difficulties our company has faced with the tool, we got support from online sources or through raising a ticket. Also, the response from the support team has been good.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I use JMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was user-friendly.

The solution is deployed on the browser.

The solution can be deployed in two to three days.

It is an averagely priced product. One of the reasons my company opted for the tool is because it is an averagely-priced product. Though we do have an APM tool in place, we chose BlazeMeter for cloud testing in our company.

BlazeMeter is the solution my company chose since it is the only tool we found compatible with JMeter. BlazeMeter's help-oriented resources and documentation support JMeter too extensively.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for enterprise performance testing of various technologies including web services, APIs, and web GUIs.

We deployed the solution to increase our performance testing footprint, which we needed to upscale for the maturity of our operation. 

We have six on-prem load generators on our network, and the rest of our deployment is in the cloud. It's a very simple architectural design.

BlazeMeter opened up performance testing for us. Our old solution was a client-based performance testing tool, and for staff to access it, they needed to remotely connect to a Windows VM and book time with that controller. Now our tool is web-based, and we onboarded 12 to 14 teams to BlazeMeter, which would not have happened before. Our CoE team was the go-to for performance testing, but the solution has opened up the practice to the whole enterprise, making teams more self-sufficient, and that's the most significant benefit. Performance testing is no longer segregated to one team.

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.

We have a very high opinion of the range of test tools the solution provides, it has a great deal of potential and we are just scratching the surface of it currently. As our maturity and skillset with the product increase, we'll be able to leverage that more. For example, we don't really use mock services yet. We know how to, but we're still set in some of our ways. 

BlazeMeter being cloud-based and open-source is vital; it was one of our top priorities when choosing a solution. Much like the rest of the world, we're moving away from the old paradigm of the Windows days where we would bring up a server, get Windows licenses, an operating system, and maintain it all. With BlazeMeter, most of that is done for us, and we don't have to worry about infrastructure. We have on-prem load generators for teams needing to run load tests from within our network, and we need to maintain that capacity. However, we don't have to host anything outside of the load generators in the network, so the maintenance effort and cost are much less than they would be as a legacy system.  

The solution does bridge Agile and CoE teams. It's a shift-left tool, and testing comes in much earlier than in the past. BlazeMeter is a valuable asset in this regard. 

The tool helped us to implement shift-left testing. Many of our teams with the required skillset can include performance testing as part of their build runs. This may not be high-level testing; internally, we refer to it as early performance testing. It allows teams to confirm the software is functioning correctly early, which was not the case before. We would wait until a certain point in the SDLC before running a performance check, and now we're able to implement that much earlier in the process. 

We currently don't have any stats on changes in our test cycle times, but there is no doubt in my mind that BlazeMeter improved our software quality.

We have not faced challenges in getting multiple teams to adopt BlazeMeter. We onboarded around 50 users in three quarters, which is incredible considering we had two performance testers before implementing the solution. Our only challenge is skill sets, our staff wants to adopt the tool and understand its importance, but they may not have the resources or skillset to do so. Those with the necessary skillset are onboarded as soon as their project is greenlighted. 

Our biggest challenge is the skill set required to operate the solution because we used to have a centralized performance testing team. Now we've opened it up to other teams; some needed to onboard new resources. The solution is simple and user-friendly, but we still need the right staff to use it.

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.

We have been using the solution for about nine months.

The solution is very stable. We had a few issues with users getting 404 errors recently, but that's the first time we have encountered any problems in three quarters. 

The scalability is incredible. We could scale it to as big or small as we want, with our license being the sole limitation. The resources are in Docker containers in Docker images. We could scale within a few minutes if necessary. 

The technical support is excellent. When we had hiccups during deployment, they responded quickly with effective solutions for us.

Positive

We used other tools and switched because they weren't as user-friendly. BlazeMeter offered us the ability to increase our performance testing footprint without requiring a high level of performance testing expertise from our QA staff. Additionally, our old solutions were client-based, and BlazeMeter is cloud-based, providing all the advantages that come with that.

The deployment is very straightforward. That was one of our criteria, as we didn't want a complex new enterprise solution rollout. There were a few bumps during deployment, but most of that was on our side. BlazeMeter is relatively simple compared to other enterprise solutions we implemented.

Less than ten staff were involved in the deployment. We used Linux Enterprise to house the six on-premise load generators, and there were a couple of employees responsible for Docker, our solutions architect, and myself as the admin.

I don't have a concrete figure, but I can say once we sunset our old solution, that will save us a significant amount of money on infrastructure, licensing, and maintenance. I also think there is an ROI associated purely with the increased quality of our software, thanks to BlazeMeter.

The product isn't cheap, but it isn't the most expensive on the market. During our proof of concept, we discovered that you get what you pay for; we found a cheaper solution we tested to be full of bugs. Therefore, we are willing to pay the higher price tag for the quality BlazeMeter offers.

We carried out a proof of concept of four tools, which included BlazeMeter. It's more stable and mature, with well-documented APIs. BlazeMeter University was a significant consideration for us due to our requirements; it helped us roll out the solution to multiple teams. It seemed like APIs for the other solutions were an afterthought.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The solution enables the creation of test data for performance and functional testing, but our use is focused on performance testing. We don't particularly use functional testing, but we are currently talking about using test data management for functional testing. We have our in-house automation framework, so the ability to create both functional and performance test data isn't a high priority for us.  

We don't use BlazeMeter's ability to build test data on-the-fly, not because we aren't aware of it, but because we are still at the early stages with the solution. Until fairly recently, just one other person and I were in charge of performance testing for the entire company, so having self-sufficient teams is an immense change for us as an organization.

I would say it's critical to have the appropriate skillsets among the staff as we could deploy just about any solution in an enterprise. Still, it won't be used to its total capacity without the proper skills. BlazeMeter showed us how little performance testing we were doing before and how vital increasing that footprint is. We've onboarded 50 users; that's 50 users who were not engaged less than a year ago and can all carry-out performance testing.

This solution can work very well for enterprise companies with a more advanced skill pool to draw from. For beginners in this area, specific skills such as JMeter scripting are required to use the application. It's easier to use than most solutions but requires a particular skill set to deploy and operate successfully. A good solutions architect and QA leads are essential in evaluating any product.

I use BlazeMeter for our WebApp Performance Desk. It helps me test web apps, APIs, databases, and mobile apps.

BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing. It means you don't have to worry about having your own devices or servers when testing web applications, as BlazeMeter provides the virtual devices you need for realistic testing.

The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three years.

BlazeMeter has been stable without downtime, and any performance issues are usually linked to the tested application, not BlazeMeter.

The product is fairly scalable.

BlazeMeter's tech support team has been excellent, providing helpful and responsive assistance through chat and email whenever we needed it. I would rate them as a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have used LoadView and it is pricier and offers its scripting tool, but it is better in some aspects. While BlazeMeter primarily uses emulators for testing, LoadView utilizes actual devices and browsers, particularly for web applications.

The initial setup is not too complex. It mainly involves configuring IP addresses and server communication, but it is a basic process similar to other tools.

BlazeMeter is more affordable than some alternatives on the market, but it is still expensive.

I would recommend giving BlazeMeter a try because they offer competitive pricing, and you can negotiate for discounts. BlazeMeter is more affordable than other products on the market but uses emulators instead of actual devices, which might be acceptable depending on your testing needs and budget.Additionally, it allows you to carry over unused virtual users to the next subscription, which can accumulate and save you money. Overall, I would rate BlazeMeter as an eight out of ten.

I used it for a couple of projects, but I don't actively use it now.

We use it for performance testing, volume testing, stress testing, and endurance testing.

We use it for EPS, web HTTP HTML, SQM, RabbitMQ, and sometimes ActiveMQ. So, it handles various testing scenarios for me. 

It has been most effective in managing large-scale tests. It saves the test execution files to the repository. The tool also has a distributing/executing model. You can create a JMeter script or YAML and then execute it using different infrastructure-related configurations.

Moreover, it can be integrated with tools like ALM.

Running from the cloud with load distribution, it exhibits load from different geo-regions. The best feature is generating loads from different cloud regions.

I find these features useful for my particular use case because I can't execute or generate the load within my infrastructure. With the cloud, I can rent on a pay-per-use model and execute the load with a massive number of users.

Sometimes, when we execute tests, the results calculated by BlazeMeter, specifically the response times for failed transactions, are incorrect. We've already reported this issue. If this could be fixed, BlazeMeter would be a much better tool compared to LoadRunner.

Currently, it incorrectly calculates response times for failed transactions, it provides data that isn't useful. We have to manually aggregate the data to get accurate values.

In future releases, I'd like to see BlazeMeter integrate with mobile applications and allow testing on real devices.

By testing on real devices, we could gather metrics related to CPU usage, memory, and battery consumption. This would give us a better understanding of how the application performs on actual devices and help us ensure there are no battery drain issues, high internet usage, or excessive CPU or memory usage. This would allow us to confidently certify that the application is optimized for real-world device performance.

I work as a centre of excellence, so I've been working with JMeter and BlazeMeter for almost nine to ten years. 

For only BlazeMeter, it would be five to six years. BlazeMeter doesn't have versions, but JMeter is currently on version 5.6.3.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. There haven't been any outages, so I'm satisfied with the stability.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It scales well. When the load generators get overloaded, it automatically distributes the load to new instances.

We don't very actively use it right now, but we have used it in the past two years. If we have the opportunity and the client is looking for a cost-effective tool, we would definitely choose BlazeMeter.

My experience with the customer service and support have been very good. 

Positive

We used LoadRunner. The cost was the main reason for the switch.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy. It was straightforward, I didn't had any issues.

• Deployment Model: It's a SaaS model, so it's already available for use. We only need to create and upload our scripts.
• Integration with existing CI pipelines: Once a new build is ready, we have automated pipelines that trigger a load test on the deployed build. It then provides a result indicating whether it's a go or no-go based on the configured SLAs.

Our organization maintains BlazeMeter, not me. I'm a performance architect who uses BlazeMeter to assess application performance.

The cost is low, so there's a definite return on investment compared to LoadRunner. 

There is no direct ROI because we still pay for the product. But think of it this way: if I spend $100 on LoadRunner but only $10 on BlazeMeter, then the ROI is essentially the $90 saved. That's how we look at it.

I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. 

We looked at NeoLoad. Here, also the cost was the primary factor.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. For me, it's a good product. 

It's a good tool for automation testing and performance testing, especially if you're looking for a high-performing, highly scalable, and cost-effective solution.

Whenever I am not able to record the script with the JMeter, I use BlazeMeter extensions to record the scripts. Whenever there is a need to execute something in the cloud, my company uses BlazeMeter.

There are some advantageous features that are available in BlazeMeter. The type of HTML reports that can be downloaded from BlazeMeter can be shown to the clients so that they can be provided with a clear picture in a clean way, allowing even a layperson to be able to understand the metrics our company shows with the help of BlazeMeter.

Whenever we use BlazeMeter for the ramp-up and designing the scenarios in our company, we also use JMeter or other load testing tools, which provide some convenience in areas where the granularity can be maintained in seconds. The ramp-up and ramp-down require our company to use the granularity for a few minutes, making it an area where improvements are required to be able to use the granularity in seconds. From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved.

Whenever we discuss the development stage, JMeter has plug-ins and other extensions in the area of WebSockets, and it is the same case in terms of the kind of extensions provided by JMeter that are available in LoadRunner. BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet. Decoding the scripts that contain the applications with Java Applet is not possible with BlazeMeter or even with JMeter, and it includes some Oracle and desktop applications, too.

I have experience with BlazeMeter.

I didn't get much opportunity to work on the tool, but as per my experience, I can say that BlazeMeter serves as an alternate tool whenever my company faces some hurdles or challenges with the JMeter and k6. To record the scripts, I use BlazeMeter as an extension. With BlazeMeter, it is very easy to identify if a request belongs to an application or not, and in the initial phase itself, we can neglect the requests that don't belong to the application. In BlazeMeter, depending upon the requests, users can select a particular domain.

Though the product is scalable, I found the tool to be a bit tricky while setting up the scenario for the stress test and during step-up and step-down kind of scenario setup.

I have experience with Grafana and JMeter.

Whenever a comparison is made between JMeter and BlazeMeter, there are a lot of differences one can observe. With JMeter, our company has to concentrate on the features as it is an open-source tool that works with Java. The configuration of the systems should have some high-end configuration, and the heap size depends upon the load our company uses. JMeter can be used in UI or GUI mode or in a non-GUI mode. If users have to go with a smoke test and the preparation of scripts, the GUI mode of JMeter can be used. For the actual execution of load testing, we have to go with JMeter's non-GUI mode. With the non-GUI mode, until the completion of the test, I could see the percentage of the error, but I couldn't see what kind of error was there in the application. In JMeter, I had to wait until the completion of the entire test. When we use the BlazeMeter cloud as a licensed tool in our company, we do have to deal with the setup of any configuration area. With BlazeMeter, whenever our company executes the load test, parallelly we can monitor what kind of errors we get, and if possible, we can have a word with the development team in parallel and we can solve all the issues so we don't need to wait until the completion of the tests as some of them may be longer than thirty minutes to an hour. In current situations, everything works in the cloud, and every request and every click gets counted in the cost. In BlazeMeter, there is no need to wait till completion of the one hour or until the end of the testing phase. BlazeMeter provides better reporting, but it takes much longer to do so, making it an area of concern where improvements are required. It is not always sufficient to only use BlazeMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was simple.

The solution can be deployed in less than five minutes.

When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good.

Currently, I am looking out for Java Applet and Oracle applications. I want something that will support the load testing phase for the tools that Java Applet and Oracle support.

I rate the overall tool between six and seven out of ten.

My company started to use BlazeMeter since we wanted parallel runs and more penetration across teams with more ease, allowing better reporting. BlazeMeter doesn't do anything on its own since it uses the same script used in JMeter. BlazeMeter serves as a tool for orchestration, and to arrange better testing, parallel testing, and better reporting, making it easy for developers to use were some of the factors that led my company to opt for BlazeMeter.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that I like its workspace and shareability of resources, allowing multiple people to access the same scripts and use them in different environments. The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable.

The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement. The tool should offer some ease of use across environments.

The solution's scalability is an area of concern where improvements are required.

BlazeMeter was introduced a year ago in my new organization because we had a higher demand. My company is a customer of the product.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten since my organization is still streamlining things at our end.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

Technical support doesn't respond the moment you put up a query, so it takes time to get a response from the customer support team. The support team does respond with enough information.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I used mostly commercial IT tools in my previous organization, including JMeter.

The product's deployment phase is fine and is not difficult.

I can't comment on the time taken to install the solution since our organization uses a shared installation with our enterprise account. My team didn't need to actually install the product, so we just created our workspace, and that was it.

I rate the product's price two on a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. The solution is not expensive.

Maintenance-wise, the product is fine.

Based on my initial perception and initial experiences, I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.