BlazeMeter Reviews

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.

We use the platform for performance and load testing to ensure our applications can handle varying traffic levels.

The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based nature, which allows us to conduct tests without relying on local resources.

Additionally, linking reports with Slack for notifications has greatly benefited our team’s communication.

The product could improve in areas such as mobile testing and the integration of AI analytics.

I have been using BlazeMeter for about two weeks. 

The product is stable. 

Our entire platform is on the Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and BlazeMeter’s ability to handle various load requirements seamlessly has been beneficial.

We have used JMeter and Gatling in the past.

The platform was easy to configure and integrate into our existing pipelines.

We implemented the platform with the help of our in-house DevOps team. 

The product pricing is reasonable. 

I recommend BlazeMeter for its ease of setup and integration into continuous testing pipelines.

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

I really like the ability to spin up as many load generators as I need, and get statistics on response times and the load generators themselves. BlazeMeter support and flexibility is also hugely valuable.

To accurately test load on a webserver it takes traffic (load) from multiple “load generators”.
A load generator is a machine running load testing software (like Jmeter).
Clearly, one couldn’t accurately test 10 load balanced webservers with traffic from a standard desktop.
If one did and saw performance issues, the most likely source would be the desktop doing the testing, or the connection.
If no performance issues were seen it could be that the desktop was not able to emulate the specified load.

One blind spot of Jmeter is it does not tell the user how many threads their machine can handle. Users need to know how to monitor. Most users don’t, and set the threads higher than the machine can handle.
Blazemeter:

- Handles all that complication and makes using Jmeter simple

- Has expert staff that can point you in the right direction if your tests are not working

- Allows users to select how many load generators (machines running Jmeter) will be used during a given test.

o There are a few different contract options (1 server, 5 servers)

o Custom contracts for any number of servers you need. I really appreciate their flexibility on the contracts.

Building an in-house group of load generation JMeter servers to load test usually takes time and effort. BlazeMeter makes all that simple.

I have used JMeter for 4 years and BlazeMeter on and off for 2 to 3 years.

There were some minor issues with stability.

We did not encounter any issues here. Scalability is one of the wonderful parts of working with BlazeMeter.

Technical support has been great.

I’ve used JMeter from several load generator servers I set up to work together.

Initial setup was easy.

If you don’t see the option you need, just ask them. You’ll be able to get a custom contract. It is not free, but it is a fantastic deal compared to anything else out there.

Most recently I have been using a custom contract with Blazemeter rather than a standard month to month contract. That allows me to pay by test hours times servers used. So I can spin up as many load generators as I need. The statistics on response times and the load generators themselves are standard Blazemeter features available to anyone with a contract. BlazeMeter support has several times helped me figure out what was going on with my tests, that saved me a chunk of time. It's always nice to have some insight from a true Jmeter expert.

We considered setting up our own set of load generation JMeter servers. We also looked at HPE LoadRunner and SoapUI.

BlazeMeter is an easy way to get really accurate results from JMeters that you already have without having to build a set of networked JMeters (e.g., one with the UI running a bunch GUI-less slave machines).

We primarily use the solution for performance testing. 

The solution is easy to navigate. 

The testing it offers is very useful and compatible with many platforms.

We don't have to maintain any infrastructure, as that is already provided by BlazeMeter. 

The real user monitoring feature is great.

I like that you can integrate JMeter script into the solution and run your load while testing a number of users.

The solution easily runs with end-user experience monitoring and you can run scripts right in the solution. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

The stability is good. 

The solution can scale. 

We have found the technical support to be quite helpful.

The pricing is quite reasonable.

We have already provided some sort of feedback for our BlazeMeter vendor who is directly interacting with us. We would like, for example, for there to be some sort of grouping features available. 

The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots. 

While they are in the cloud, it would be good to also offer on-premises options. 

I've been using the solution for about ten years. It's been about a decade. We've used it for a while. 

We've found the stability to be reliable. We're not running into any performance issues at all. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We are planning to scale up to more BlazeMeter products very soon. You can scale it well. We want to scale up to ten products a month.

Technical support has been very good so far. They are helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the assistance overall.

We also use LoadRunner.

The solution is very straightforward to implement. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

The deployment only takes one week or so. 

The pricing of the solution is pretty good. It's not overly expensive.

We pay to license the solution every year. There are many types of license models. We have chosen the UH license model for which we pay every year.

We're a customer and an end-user.

I'd advise a company considers multiple technologies to support its goals. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

To load performance testing of web/mobile apps.

WIP.

• Simplicity
• Easy integration of open source tools
• Moderate migration of ALM scripts.

Reporting.

I use BlazeMeter for the different samplers it provides.

The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for two years. My company is a customer of the solution.

Right now, I don't know about the product's stability. I did not experience any downtime or performance issues with the solution.

For support, I generally use Google or other online sources.

Though I have experience with a solution from OpenText, I feel BlazeMeter is the best. The main reason my company chose BlazeMeter was because it was preferred by one of our clients.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

The product's installation deployment phase

The solution can be deployed in thirty minutes.

The solution did not help save money or time, and neither did it improve security since it was mainly used in our company to deal with the network part.

I have not integrated the tool with any other solutions.

Though it is a good tool, there are certain areas where improvements are required in the product.

Compared to BlazeMeter, multiple options are available in the market for people to choose from to meet their requirements.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

I mainly use BlazeMeter for scripting. I have a performance testing background, and can directly record my workload with the help of a BlazeMeter plugin. Once I've recorded I can modify a couple of enhancements. I can design my signature in BlazeMeter and choose multiple dedicated IPs, depending on our load. We are system integrators and I'm a senior engineer. 

Providing the Cloud load generator is a good feature. We can run executions from multiple locations. Very few tools provide that. They have recently started with separate API testing. I haven't had a chance to use that yet but it might be very helpful. The solution offers flexibility with its configurations, taking around two to five minutes each. You can see the metrics in a graphical view while running the tests. Response times are also visible and can filter whatever we need and get the results of error loads. 

Documentation for the solution could be improved because there are some areas, such as licensing costs, where there is a lack of information regarding structure. I'd also like the ability to see a comparison feature after carrying out several tests. I'd like to know the difference in terms of response times and other details. That would be a great feature for them to provide. 

Sometimes we'd like to include additional users during a test run to check application sustainability. We can do it from a scripting end but it would be great if BlazeMeter would provide the option of adding a few more users while running a test.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The stability is good. 

The scalability is good. 

If there are issues I update it in a chat and the technical support creates a ticket ID for follow-up. Sometimes they respond very quickly and other times they are very slow at resolving the issue. Response times are inconsistent. 

The initial setup is relatively straightforward and user-friendly. We have less than 50 users, we don't do any load tests.

I recommend BlazeMeter because of the accuracy of the results. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

We used BlazeMeter for our performance testing. It allows us to run our tests on the local area network. Its primary use is to make sure that applications can handle a high load before going into the production environment. It will generate a report with the results.

The clients come up with some of the test cases and we have to validate them.

Using this product has improved the way our organization does testing.

This is a customizable product.

The documentation is good.

The sharing works well.

Having more options for customization would be helpful.

We have been using BlazeMeter for the last six months.

We have about 20 users who run over 1,000 test cases.

The technical support is good. They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us.

I started working directly with Blazemeter. There is another person in the company who is using LoadRunner and it costs about $300 per year.

The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.