Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BlazeMeter vs BrowserStack comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
48
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th), Load Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (5th)
BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 0.7%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BrowserStack is 11.2%, up from 11.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Bala Maddu - PeerSpot reviewer
Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases
Overall, it's helped our ability to address test data challenges. The test data features on their own are very good, but version control test data isn't included yet. I think that's an area for improvement. We can update the test data on the cloud. That's a good feature. There's also test data management, which is good. [Runscope] doesn't have the test data management yet. Mock services do, and performance testing has it. We can do the same test through JMeter, validating the same criteria, but the feedback from [Runscope] is quite visible. We can see the request and the response, what data comes back, and add the validation criteria. We can manage the test environments and test data, but running the same API request for multiple test data is missing. We cloned the test cases multiple times to run it. They need to work on that. Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within [Runscope] would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes. In the future, I would like to see integrations with GitLab and external Git reports so we could have some sort of version control outside as well. There is no current mechanism for that. The ability to have direct imports of spoken API specifications instead of converting them to JSON would be nice. There are some features they could work on.
ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users
I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"The user interface is good."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based nature, which allows us to conduct tests without relying on local resources."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"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."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
 

Cons

"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for."
"The support could be better."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The product could improve in areas such as mobile testing and the integration of AI analytics."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"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."
"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."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good."
"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."
"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
"It's consumption-based pricing but with a ceiling. They're called CVUs, or consumption variable units. We can use API testing, GUI testing, and test data, but everything gets converted into CVUs, so we are free to use the platform in its entirety without getting bogged down by a license for certain testing areas. We know for sure how much we are going to spend."
"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."
"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."
"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"The price is fine."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
838,640 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What do you like most about BlazeMeter?
It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BlazeMeter?
BlazeMeter's pricing is competitive but can be negotiable.
What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?
My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. BrowserStack and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,640 professionals have used our research since 2012.