BlazeMeter and Selenium HQ both compete in the automation testing landscape, with BlazeMeter excelling in load and performance testing, particularly due to its cloud-based capabilities for global traffic simulation and seamless JMeter integration, whereas Selenium HQ dominates in web application testing automation with its open-source flexibility and cross-browser support.
Features: BlazeMeter offers cloud-based load generation, allowing for significant scalability and real-time integration with tools like New Relic. It simplifies the use of JMeter scripts, making global performance testing more accessible. Additionally, it boasts seamless handling of large concurrent users, crucial for enterprises testing at scale. Selenium HQ supports extensive programming languages, emphasizing robust UI testing across multiple browsers. Its integration capabilities with CI tools make it a staple for web automation. Furthermore, its open-source nature provides flexibility, supporting various environments and offering a rich set of tools like Selenium Grid for distributed testing.
Room for Improvement: BlazeMeter could refine its reporting capabilities and enhance the speed of provisioning resources. There's also room for better integration with mobile applications and granular access control improvements. Users express the need for advanced integration with APM tools. Selenium HQ users seek enhanced support for desktop applications and improved dynamic element handling. The introduction of machine learning for self-healing locators and superior cross-browser testing is desired to enhance its automation capabilities further.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BlazeMeter offers versatile deployment options, including public, private, and hybrid clouds, providing outstanding technical support and proactive assistance. Its support is frequently updated, addressing customer issues with prompt solutions. In contrast, Selenium HQ primarily depends on community support due to its open-source nature. Though extensive documentation and online resources are available, direct support is less emphasized compared to BlazeMeter.
Pricing and ROI: BlazeMeter employs a consumption-based pricing model, offering custom contracts. While it's perceived as expensive, it promises substantial ROI by enhancing testing efficiency and reducing infrastructure costs. Selenium HQ stands out as a cost-effective choice, being free and open-source, attracting organizations prioritizing budget considerations. However, it requires significant development expertise, and maintaining custom frameworks could impact the true ROI.
The customer service is not available 24/7, which affects its rating.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
BlazeMeter has the capability to simulate a higher number of users compared to JMeter standalone.
BlazeMeter is quite scalable, and I rate its scalability as nine out of ten.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
I would rate the stability of BlazeMeter as eight out of ten, indicating that it is a stable and reliable solution.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
The extra CSV random dataset plugin could be integrated with a simple checkbox in the existing CSV dataset plugin to read files randomly.
The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.
BlazeMeter integrates with JMeter via multiple plugins, which streamlines performance testing, test monitoring, and report sharing.
BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Selenium HQ | 3.2% |
| BlazeMeter | 1.2% |
| Other | 95.6% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 19 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 9 |
| Large Enterprise | 22 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 41 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 33 |
| Large Enterprise | 51 |
BlazeMeter ensures delivery of high-performance software by enabling DevOps teams to quickly and easily run open-source-based performance tests against any mobile app, website or API at massive scale to validate performance at every stage of software delivery.
The rapidly growing BlazeMeter community has more than 100,000 developers and includes prominent global brands such as Adobe, Atlassian, Gap, NBC Universal, Pfizer and Walmart as customers. Founded in 2011, the company is headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif., with its research and development in Tel Aviv.
Selenium HQ is an umbrella project that includes a number of tools and frameworks that allow for web browser automation. In particular, Selenium offers a framework for the W3C WebDriver specification, a platform- and language-neutral coding interface that works with all of the main web browsers.
Selenium is a toolset for automating web browsers that uses the best methods available to remotely control browser instances and simulate a user's interaction with the browser. It enables users to mimic typical end-user actions, such as typing text into forms, choosing options from drop-down menus, checking boxes, and clicking links in documents. Additionally, it offers a wide range of other controls, including mouse movement, arbitrary JavaScript execution, and much more.
Although Selenium HQ is generally used for front-end website testing, it is also a browser user agent library. The interfaces are universal in their use, which enables composition with other libraries to serve your purpose.
The source code for Selenium is accessible under the Apache 2.0 license. The project is made possible by volunteers who have kindly committed hundreds of hours to the development and maintenance of the code.
Selenium HQ Tools
These three main Selenium HQ tools have powerful capabilities:
Reviews from Real Users
Selenium HQ stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its driver interface and its speed. PeerSpot users take note of the advantages of these features in their reviews:
Avijit B., an automation tester at a tech services company, writes of the solution, “The driver interface is really useful. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application.”
Another PeerSpot reviewer, a software engineer at a financial services firm, notes, “Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
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.
