We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Eggplant Performance 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."It is an open-source tool that is easy to use. It can be easily integrated with multiple tools, including Selenium."
"JMeter is basically the art of the entire performance testing process."
"The solution has good transition controllers and distributed testing."
"It is very quick and user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature in JMeter is the Thread Group, which helps us to see whether the performance is good."
"The performance of the solution is excellent."
"Apache JMeter is stable."
"The scripting ability is most valuable. It is easy to use. There is a UI, and you can go in there and figure those things out. After you've got a good set of tests, you basically have a scripted document that you can grab and execute in a pipeline. It is pretty quick to set up, and you can scale it and version control it."
"We don't have a big team of people that can watch the dials and check that everything is okay. We're doing a lot of the monitoring of our website and our product at the side of the desk. We need a solution that does a lot for us, and that's what Eggplant does."
"We find the solution stable and scalable."
"It is not a conventional test automation tool. It uses optical character recognition (OCR) to identify objects. It makes it the best in the class."
"We would like some reporting and analysis tools to be added to this solution."
"The only thing is the learning curve. It's high."
"If JMeter could integrate with the EPM solution, it would be great. It could also be improved by offering more integrations for security. For example, most applications are secure with OpenID Connect protocols."
"Given that Apache JMeter is a free and open-source tool, documentation improvement may not be a major concern, as it is mostly contributed on a voluntary basis. The essential information is already available. However, in terms of the interface, there are occasional bugs, and the tool may not address them as quickly as some users would like. Fixing defects and bugs might take a considerable amount of time, with users sometimes having to wait for several months or even a year for the next release to address specific issues."
"There is some work to be done with the integration."
"The memory utilization in JMeter is very poor."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"Its reporting could be improved. There should be a better visual representation. That would be helpful for easy consumption of the reports."
"Performance is one key area for improvement. It can be slower compared to other tools I've used."
"I'd like to see the ability to integrate the user experience through device forms like AWS device forms or source labs."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Eggplant Performance is ranked 15th in Performance Testing Tools with 4 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Eggplant Performance 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 Eggplant Performance writes "Offers unique object identification, ideal for UI layer regression automation but limited scalability". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Eggplant Performance is most compared with Appium, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One. See our Apache JMeter vs. Eggplant Performance 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.