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
 

Categories and Ranking

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
47
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (4th), Load Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, 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 10.8% 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 straightforward."
"The stability is good."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"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."
"For me, the best part is that we can graphically see the test result at runtime. It helps us understand the behavior of the application during all stages of the test."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android 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."
 

Cons

"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."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"The scalability features still need improvement."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"Sometimes, when we execute tests, the results calculated by BlazeMeter, specifically the response times for failed transactions, are incorrect."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"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."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"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."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"We had some execution issues."
"The solution is slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is free and open source."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
"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."
"It is an averagely priced product."
"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."
"My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product."
"The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"The price is fine."
"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."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"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."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
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: December 2024.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.