We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and BrowserStack based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"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 feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The stability is good."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"The integration is very good."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"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."
"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."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"The solution is slow."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while BrowserStack is rated 8.0. 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 BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Sauce Labs, whereas BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Katalon Studio. See our BlazeMeter vs. BrowserStack report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
