We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and SmartBear LoadNinja 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 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."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"It gives accurate results and recommendations that we can implement to enhance the performance of websites."
"It is easy to set up."
"JMeter lets us generate virtual users and T-load, per our requirements. It's easy to configure and adjusting the virtual users according to the DPS we want to achieve."
"JMeter is basically the art of the entire performance testing process."
"The solution offers a lot of plug-ins and a huge continuously developing community that is regularly offering new features and plug-ins."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"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."
"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."
"The reporting section of the solution can be better."
"Apache JMeter could be a more user-friendly product from the end user's perspective."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"In terms of platform support, they need to extend the support for backend platforms and more of the legacy types of platforms."
"JMeter should be more stable. Every time there is a new release coming up, a lot of its older functionalities or the new functionalities that are brought in are not very well-documented. It should be documented properly, and there should be proper use cases."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"It needs time to mature."
"On a smaller scale, there will be no budget issues, but as we expand to a larger user base, I believe we will face some pricing challenges."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while SmartBear LoadNinja is ranked 14th in Performance Testing Tools with 3 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while SmartBear LoadNinja is rated 7.4. 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 SmartBear LoadNinja writes "Easy to use with good documentation and helpful support". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca, whereas SmartBear LoadNinja is most compared with ReadyAPI Performance, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad and Selenium HQ. See our Apache JMeter vs. SmartBear LoadNinja report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load 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.