Apache JMeter Reviews

The most valuable feature of this solution is being able to launch many requests and scheduling simulating human interactions with the application. There are some other plugins for monitoring and collecting data for JMeter but we don't use them. 

If JMeter could integrate with the EPM solution, it would be great. It could also be improved by offering more integrations for security. For example, most applications are secure with OpenID Connect protocols.

I have been using this solution for more than 10 years.

This is a stable solution. 

We previously used Katalon. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using Apache JMeter for automation and for processing activities of our clients. Additionally, it is used for testing.

The most valuable feature of Apache JMeter is its popularity. It is the best open-source tool with all the features needed.

The reports in Apache JMeter could improve.

I have been using Apache JMeter for approximately one and a half years.

The stability of Apache JMeter is good.

Apache JMeter is scalable.

We have less than five people using this solution in my organization.

There is a lot of support available that is good, such as in forums. However, they do not have a dedicated team that you can contact.

I have not used a solution previously.

Apache JMeter was straightforward to install.

The price of Apache JMeter is good. The selling rate is quite effective and the limited users with a multi-region-related execution.

My advice to others is to go through some basic video processes, which are available on YouTube and Apache JMeter site, it has a lot of documentation that will help you get prepared and used to the tool.

I rate Apache JMeter a seven out of ten.

Regardless of, whether it is used for personal performance, load, volume, UI test, or functional test Apache JMeter is the best tool on the market.

It is cost-effective and simple to use.

Take, for example, a performance test with, the Micro Focus performance test tool, and compare it to Apache JMeter. Apache JMeter is far less expensive than HP Performance Center.

When you run tests with JMeter, it generates test version five, which is extremely large. Also, when you have a large number of tests to run, it requires a large size or memory size, which basically means it consumes a lot of memory. It would be helpful to come up with a way to be able to use Apache JMeter in a way where it did not use as much memory. It will be much easier, and beneficial for the individual to run it on their own machines rather than having a high-end infrastructure, more CPUs, or more memory that has been consumed by Apache JMeter.

I have been working with Apache JMeter for two years now.

I am working with the latest version.

It's on digital platforms rather than the cloud.

I am absolutely satisfied with the stability of Apache JMeter.

Apache JMeter is a scalable product. We are pleased with the scalability of this solution.

When we have encountered difficulties and reached out to technical support, they respond very quickly and most of the things are readily available with them, for all of the challenges or support that are required. If I had to rate them from one to ten, I would rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

It is very easy to set up. There have been no issues, it's hassle-free, and it doesn't require a lot of expertise or specialization to configure and set up JMeter. 

It is very straightforward and very easy. That is something that anyone can do.

Our team completed the deployment. It only requires one person and takes no more than two to four hours.

In terms of maintenance, we only require one person.

When you compare it to HP because prior to using this Apache JMeter, we used this HP Performance Center, and in terms of ROI, while I don't have exact figures, when it comes to HP Performance Center, we have nearly five times more. You can say that it's five times less of an investment and five times written on the investment by using Apache JMeter. With Apache JMeter, you receive five times more. It's higher.

It's a yearly license.

I would rate Apache JMeter an eight out of ten.

We use Apache JMeter for the load generation scripts for performance testing.

The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution.

We use many plugins to customize our scripts, which is its main purpose. We wanted to be able to use a larger variety of customizable plugins to meet our needs. Along with our, JMeter, you would use a variety of plugins.

The number of customization plugins should be increased.

There could be improvements in terms of memory utilization. We are going to migrate away from JMeter in the near future.

The data storage should be improved.

Scalability could be improved.

It should support more protocols.

I have been working with Apache JMeter for three or four years.

We use version 5.0

We are using the cluster mode because one node is definitely not enough. Scalability can be improved.

When compared with other solutions, it's not as good, which is the reason we are moving to another solution.

Scalability must improve.

Generally, we use open forums, to resolve any issues we may have.

I also work with BlazeMeter.

I worked with Apache JMeter, from the beginning.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We have a small team to maintain this solution.

We completed the installation on our own. It was completed in-house.

Apache JMeter is an open-source solution.

We don't use the paid version of this solution.

Everything is included, and there are no additional costs.

I would suggest that instead of using a GUI-based implementation, try to make it code-based. Try to replicate the configuration. The plug should be job-ready, and ready to be integrated as well. Rather than having a UI, and limitations.

Three or four years ago, I would have given it a seven or eight, but now that there are more powerful competitors, I would give Apache JMeter a five out of ten.

I mainly use JMeter to capture the traffic of the most-visited page to see how much load a particular page is getting and how many users are using that page for a particular amount of time. I've also used it to capture APIs for particular pages.

The most valuable features are the ability to capture the entire traffic of particular pages and the proper readability of entire pages and entire APIs.

One of the drawbacks of JMeter is that it can't handle a large amount of load, which forces us to switch to other tools when we need to load more than a 5,000 or 10,000 user load. In the next release, I would like JMeter to be more compatible with other languages in the market.

I've been using JMeter for six to eight months.

JMeter can't be used in the long run, so I'd rate its stability as five out of ten.

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

Apache's technical support is pretty good, I've had no issues with them.

The initial setup was straightforward and took about five to six months.

I used an in-house team.

JMeter is open source, so there are no licensing costs associated with it.

I evaluated SoapUI, Postman, and Visual Studio. JMeter was more reliable compared to these options.

I would definitely recommend JMeter in terms of usability. If you're using AngularJS as a language for testing UIs, JMeter might not be a good idea. I'd rate this solution as six out of ten.

We are in the service industry. We implement it for our customers. We recommend the right tool and set it up for them. So, I've not had any hands-on experience in my current role, but I have a good understanding or a fair idea of the tool's capabilities. I have a team that takes care of the technical aspects.

It is an open-source solution. So, typically when you don't want to make a heavy investment, and you want to do some level of performance testing, Apache JMeter is used. 

It is typically on-premises, and it has also been on the public cloud. It could be Azure, or it could be AWS. It is very rarely on GCP.

It helps them to look into several parameters. For example, when you have certified test cases that are predominantly repeated on an application, you can execute the same thing with increased load. You can see how the application responds and if there is an impact on the response time of the application. You can confine it to certain parameter conditions and then start making changes to see how it performs. You can see where the RAM or CPUs are stagnant and not increased.

The metrics part of it and the ability to write your custom code to do some specific tests in the performance testing space are the most valuable features.

It is easy to use. If you want to test your application out and not incur a lot of costs, it is probably the best tool.

Its reporting could be improved. There should be a better visual representation. That would be helpful for easy consumption of the reports.

I have been using it for about four to five years.

JMeter is probably good for lower loads. It is not comparable to LoadRunner when it comes to higher loads.

It probably scales up to a few thousand users but not beyond that.

Because it is an open-source community, their support is probably average. It won't be like the support for a commercial product. I would rate it a six out of ten.

LoadRunner is one of the prominent tools. It was formerly HP, and now it is Micro Focus. It has good capabilities and features. It also has decent reporting capabilities. Because of the brand and the capability, it was probably chosen by most of the Fortune 500 clients that we work with. There are also some startup communities or organizations that ventured into other solutions, such as JMeter.

In terms of comparison, primarily, there are three to four parameters. The first one is the ease of use. The second one is about the protocols that need to be tested, whether it's web or API, HTTP, HTTPS, and all the native things. The third one is in terms of flexibility in setting it up and executing, and the fourth one is in terms of monitoring the execution and reporting pieces. Those are the key parameters for pros and cons. LoadRunner gives you a lot more capability and flexibility, but at the same time, it also consumes a lot of resources. JMeter is relatively simpler, cheaper, and easier to use.

I don't have hands-on experience with it, but based on what I have heard from people, it's pretty straightforward in terms of the setup. 

The setup probably takes a week or two, and then the execution is probably a three to four weeks exercise.

We are in the services business. Clients give us access, and we set it up there.

It is certainly good for testing out the applications for performance testing, especially when you have to test them out frequently and make sure that they are good for at least a few thousand users. It has a decent ROI.

It is open source. There are no licensing costs associated. If you need enterprise support, you'll probably end up paying for a license.

You would also factor in the infrastructure cost, but that's not significant.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It is a decent choice from a small-scale perspective, but reporting could be better. If you want to get some performance testing done without spending money, JMeter is probably the best tool. It doesn't have the best reporting, but it is quite a handy tool.

My main use case of JMeter is for web application performance testing as well as for API performance testing. We are customers of Apache. 

The benefit of JMeter is that it does our performance testing and provides a report without the need to spend money on a licensed tool. It's a significant benefit for us and for the project we're currently working on.

The fact that the solution is open source makes a big difference as we're working on a low-budget project. It's quite user-friendly and easy to use.

There are issues with the plug-ins which you need for reporting purposes as they make the reports quite heavy so you have to run them in non-GUI mode. If you go above the 200 user mark, the application creates a bottleneck and that's one of its major drawbacks. It means you have to run with a master-slave configuration with one system being the master, and multiple slave systems. It's not ideal and I think it could be simplified with a UI that provides direct configuration. In addition, the solution doesn't support SIP applications and some other protocols.

JMeter is not designed for high loads, if you overdo it the tool becomes a bottleneck. Unless you're using JMeter in multiple systems and all the systems are connected through a particular LAN, there is a limit.

Because it's freeware there's no official tech support but you can raise a request on the JMeter site. We haven't had many problems. 

We were previously using LoadRunner for this project but moved to JMeter because it's a freeware testware.

The initial setup is quite easy. There is no deployment process, you download a file from the web application service from your JMeter site, and you can use it. Any user with a little bit of knowledge can do it. The download takes about 15 minutes so you can be using JMeter in about half an hour. From time to time there are version upgrades but they don't affect existing assets. We have four people using JMeter and they don't have any issues. 

BlazeMeter works on top of JMeter and there is a small cost factor to purchase that. It basically gives a slightly more advanced JMeter. 

If you're working on a low-budget project and don't have dependencies of a huge number of users then this is the perfect tool. If you have 2,000 or 3,000 users then it's probably best to look at other options.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We are in the financial industry in India and carry out performance testing. We deal with  SWIFT messages and financial messaging systems. A few years ago we had 2 million transactions in five hours; today it's 2 million in two hours. To measure these performances, I use JMeter for regression. We have Exadata, Exalogic infrastructure. We are users of JMeter and I'm a technical specialist. 

This tool is very user-friendly and easy to use. It's open-source so there are no costs involved for the non-production environments. It's easily available to anyone who wants to use it and it has all the features required for performance metrics.

I think it has some proxy-based dependencies which require specific proxies to be set up or disabled, which causes problems when we are working in certain specific environments that have a proxy setup. When we want it to do a record with some new scripts, there are some challenges there.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable and easily scalable. 

The support is very good, with good technical teams. Whenever we get stuck they support us and provide solutions. 

The initial setup took only 10 minutes but there were some complications with the product initially having less features. That has been greatly improved. It's easy to do maintenance of the test tools which we develop, and it's easy to maintain as a product. We have around 20 users of this solution. 

It's open-source, so there's no cost. If you need some support from the vendors there will be a charge for that. 

I would recommend this solution. Most of the support, guides, and tutorials are available on YouTube. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10.