Apache JMeter Reviews

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.

I have been using Apache JMeter for one year.

Apache JMeter is stable.

I have found Apache JMeter to be scalable.

Since Apache JMeter is open source there is no vendor support, you have to use the online communities available.

I have used Micro Focus LoadRunner previously and it is better features than Apache JMeter. However, it is not free.

The initial setup was easy for Apache JMeter.

Apache JMeter is a free open source solution and it is why we are using it.

For those who do not want to spend money on tools then this solution would be a good choice. This is the best solution in the open-source category.

I rate Apache JMeter an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for API testing.

The ease of use is the solution's most valuable feature. Also, the ability to easily create test cases is also very good. It's easy to just ramp up on the solution.

The solution is new to us. I'm not sure if we're using the full capabilities of the solution yet, but from what we have used, we're quite satisfied.

In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane.

The solution is stable.

The solution is very scalable.

We're not using too many features of the solution itself, so we haven't needed the assistance of technical support yet.

We previously used LoadRunner. We decided to switch because on LoadRunner scaling up was a problem.  We needed licenses to do so and it was becoming a problem for us to simulate the number of users we were expecting. 

The general setup of the solution is straightforward.

Before we chose JMeter, we looked at NeoLoad, but it looked to have the same issues surrounding licensing that LoadRunner did.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

The advice I would give to others would be to look at your requirements and decide if the solution is right for you. For us, it was API testing and JMeter is very good for this.

I'd rate this solution nine out of ten.

We are using it for load testing. We test other companies' programs.

We are using it just for load testing. We are using its free version, and it is scalable.

I am not satisfied with this solution. Its UI side is not so easy to use for beginners. It should be easier. 

Modeling a test is difficult. If you don't have much knowledge, you won't be able to do it easily. Testing APIs is also difficult.

For JSON, you can use tools such as JSONBuddy, but they are difficult to get in JMeter. It should be easy to get JSONBuddy from the website. I have to use BlazeMeter only to get JSONBuddy.

It has been about five months.

It is not so stable.

It is scalable.

Their support is fine. There are not many Apache documents, but you can find other documents on the web.

It is not so difficult.

We are using the free version.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

I implement this solution for my clients.

It is very quick and user-friendly.

If the solution was GUI based, I believe that it would be more versatile.

I have been using this solution anywhere from six to eight years.

The solution is stable, I would definitely recommend it to those who are considering it.

The solution is scalable.

No licensing is required as it is a free, open-source tool.

I was experimenting with Apache JMeter. I was doing a proof of concept for myself to see if it fit my needs. I wanted to compare it with LoadRunner to see how it compares in terms of recording, ease of use, and functionality.

I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools. For instance, we are also looking at OctoPerf and, I know for OctoPerf, you can import JMeter scripts, whereas, for LoadRunner, you cannot import LoadRunner scripts into OctoPerf.

I like the graphing; it is good.

Once I got past the learning curve, it was okay.

There were a lot of features that translated well from LoadRunner. I have LoadRunner experience, so once I applied my base knowledge to JMeter, then it was okay. The terminology was a little different, but the functionality is similar. For instance, They are called "extractors," in JMeter and called "correlation" in LoadRunner. 

Once I learned the terminology and how to navigate through JMeter, then it was easier.

I still think LoadRunner is a better tool, but for some purposes, JMeter would suit the need.

The installation needs some work. It could be simplified.

When compared with LoadRunner, LoadRunner is a more mature product.

I used it for a couple of weeks.

It's pretty stable, I don't have any complaints.

We didn't do a large load test. I didn't explore the scalability.

I was the only person using this solution, but I ran 100 user load tests.

I did not need to use technical support.

Previously, we were testing LoadRunner.

I reviewed some YouTube videos and went through them. It wasn't necessarily intuitive.

There was some configuration, and file that had to be set up.

It wasn't like LoadRunner where they have an automatic installer and wizard that does everything for you.

It wasn't as easy, but anyone who is technical can work through it.

When comparing the price with LoadRunner, and if the cost is an issue then JMeter is a better choice. LoadRunner is very expensive.

I like LoadRunner better, although I might be biased because I do have LoadRunner experience. I am a little more familiar with it. I was leaning towards LoadRunner.

I would advise others to look at YouTube videos for the setup. Other than that, it was pretty straightforward. I was pretty much satisfied with it. It's a good tool, and it sounds like it's been around for a while.

I would rate Apache JMeter a seven out of ten.

I mainly use JMeter to check network capacity.

JMeter's most valuable feature is the RegEx Extractor.

Running JMeter in GUI mode uses a lot of memory, which means we need to switch to a non-GUI mode when using a heavy load. There's also a steep learning curve for how to use regular expressions.

I've been using JMeter for over three months.

I would rate JMeter's stability seven out of ten.

I would rate JMeter's scalability as six out of ten.

The initial setup was very easy and took around five minutes.

I implemented JMeter myself.

JMeter is open source and available free of charge.

I would recommend JMeter to other users as it's easy to use and open source, and overall, I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for performance download testing.

It's a solution that's easy to use. It's a bit different from SoapUI and LoadUI.

The user interface is a little bit tricky.

The solution is very stable.

It's not 100% scalable like LoadUI, but LoadUI is very expensive. We're an outsourcing company, so we have approximately ten users. We may have plans to expand in the future.

The solution doesn't have technical support. If we need answers, we look for them on the internet.

Previously, we used the basic version of LoadUI. We switched because LoadUI is very expensive and Apache JMeter is free.

The initial setup was complex. We did have it done in a day. It took approximately one hour. We have about five to six people that manage the solution.

The solution is free. You don't need to worry about licensing costs.

We didn't evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

We are using the private cloud version of the solution.

I would rate this solution eight out of ten. If it had a bit of a better user interface, I would rate it higher.

In general, the primary use case of this solution is for performance testing and load testing.

Typically it is for load tests. They have to focus on three metrics including throughput, response times, and the utilization of the resources including the CPUs.

We are delivering some bank houses with performance tests, through JMeter.

The deployment model varies depending on the client. Some have a private line.

From the customers' perspective, the most valuable feature is the price.

The most valuable feature for us is the available information on the forums and to be able to discuss and get answers from the people that are involved in using this tool.

They have to find a way to prepare the script or to prepare a detailed analysis. We have to collect all the information on each of the services we have to call. Based on this they have to collect in the phase of preparation for the performance test and then we can run our audit. It is easy to prepare a script to run a performance test.

You can't rely on the support. It's something that is not fully working.

The scalability of this solution needs some improvement.

There is some work to be done with the integration.

This solution is stable, but it does have one limitation with the number of throughputs. For example, if I want to generate four, five, or two thousand people working concurrently then they have to prepare our setup for ten PC servers.

Normally they can run a load for five thousand people, customers, or users working concurrently. It is scalable but needs some improvement.

The technical support on the site is not fully functioning.

The initial setup is easy and straightforward.

You can have it running within thirty minutes.

I had always implemented this solution myself, but It's been a couple of years since I did it last.

Now it is done through our company technicians.  I just coordinate activity-performance tests for our customers.

This is an open-source solution, and there are no fees.

The requirements for most of our customers is to provide them with cheap solutions, and most prefer not to pay for software. This is the right solution for them based on some of the open-source tools that are available.

There are some commercial solutions that provide better integration to the solutions that must be tested when running loads.

I would rate this solution an eight out ten.