BlazeMeter Reviews

I used it for a couple of projects, but I don't actively use it now.

We use it for performance testing, volume testing, stress testing, and endurance testing.

We use it for EPS, web HTTP HTML, SQM, RabbitMQ, and sometimes ActiveMQ. So, it handles various testing scenarios for me. 

It has been most effective in managing large-scale tests. It saves the test execution files to the repository. The tool also has a distributing/executing model. You can create a JMeter script or YAML and then execute it using different infrastructure-related configurations.

Moreover, it can be integrated with tools like ALM.

Running from the cloud with load distribution, it exhibits load from different geo-regions. The best feature is generating loads from different cloud regions.

I find these features useful for my particular use case because I can't execute or generate the load within my infrastructure. With the cloud, I can rent on a pay-per-use model and execute the load with a massive number of users.

Sometimes, when we execute tests, the results calculated by BlazeMeter, specifically the response times for failed transactions, are incorrect. We've already reported this issue. If this could be fixed, BlazeMeter would be a much better tool compared to LoadRunner.

Currently, it incorrectly calculates response times for failed transactions, it provides data that isn't useful. We have to manually aggregate the data to get accurate values.

In future releases, I'd like to see BlazeMeter integrate with mobile applications and allow testing on real devices.

By testing on real devices, we could gather metrics related to CPU usage, memory, and battery consumption. This would give us a better understanding of how the application performs on actual devices and help us ensure there are no battery drain issues, high internet usage, or excessive CPU or memory usage. This would allow us to confidently certify that the application is optimized for real-world device performance.

I work as a centre of excellence, so I've been working with JMeter and BlazeMeter for almost nine to ten years. 

For only BlazeMeter, it would be five to six years. BlazeMeter doesn't have versions, but JMeter is currently on version 5.6.3.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. There haven't been any outages, so I'm satisfied with the stability.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It scales well. When the load generators get overloaded, it automatically distributes the load to new instances.

We don't very actively use it right now, but we have used it in the past two years. If we have the opportunity and the client is looking for a cost-effective tool, we would definitely choose BlazeMeter.

My experience with the customer service and support have been very good. 

We used LoadRunner. The cost was the main reason for the switch.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy. It was straightforward, I didn't had any issues.

• Deployment Model: It's a SaaS model, so it's already available for use. We only need to create and upload our scripts.
• Integration with existing CI pipelines: Once a new build is ready, we have automated pipelines that trigger a load test on the deployed build. It then provides a result indicating whether it's a go or no-go based on the configured SLAs.

Our organization maintains BlazeMeter, not me. I'm a performance architect who uses BlazeMeter to assess application performance.

The cost is low, so there's a definite return on investment compared to LoadRunner. 

There is no direct ROI because we still pay for the product. But think of it this way: if I spend $100 on LoadRunner but only $10 on BlazeMeter, then the ROI is essentially the $90 saved. That's how we look at it.

I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. 

We looked at NeoLoad. Here, also the cost was the primary factor.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. For me, it's a good product. 

It's a good tool for automation testing and performance testing, especially if you're looking for a high-performing, highly scalable, and cost-effective solution.

My company started to use BlazeMeter since we wanted parallel runs and more penetration across teams with more ease, allowing better reporting. BlazeMeter doesn't do anything on its own since it uses the same script used in JMeter. BlazeMeter serves as a tool for orchestration, and to arrange better testing, parallel testing, and better reporting, making it easy for developers to use were some of the factors that led my company to opt for BlazeMeter.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that I like its workspace and shareability of resources, allowing multiple people to access the same scripts and use them in different environments. The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable.

The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement. The tool should offer some ease of use across environments.

The solution's scalability is an area of concern where improvements are required.

BlazeMeter was introduced a year ago in my new organization because we had a higher demand. My company is a customer of the product.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten since my organization is still streamlining things at our end.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

Technical support doesn't respond the moment you put up a query, so it takes time to get a response from the customer support team. The support team does respond with enough information.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I used mostly commercial IT tools in my previous organization, including JMeter.

The product's deployment phase is fine and is not difficult.

I can't comment on the time taken to install the solution since our organization uses a shared installation with our enterprise account. My team didn't need to actually install the product, so we just created our workspace, and that was it.

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.

Maintenance-wise, the product is fine.

Based on my initial perception and initial experiences, I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

I use BlazeMeter for our WebApp Performance Desk. It helps me test web apps, APIs, databases, and mobile apps.

BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing. It means you don't have to worry about having your own devices or servers when testing web applications, as BlazeMeter provides the virtual devices you need for realistic testing.

The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three years.

BlazeMeter has been stable without downtime, and any performance issues are usually linked to the tested application, not BlazeMeter.

The product is fairly scalable.

BlazeMeter's tech support team has been excellent, providing helpful and responsive assistance through chat and email whenever we needed it. I would rate them as a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have used LoadView and it is pricier and offers its scripting tool, but it is better in some aspects. While BlazeMeter primarily uses emulators for testing, LoadView utilizes actual devices and browsers, particularly for web applications.

The initial setup is not too complex. It mainly involves configuring IP addresses and server communication, but it is a basic process similar to other tools.

BlazeMeter is more affordable than some alternatives on the market, but it is still expensive.

I would recommend giving BlazeMeter a try because they offer competitive pricing, and you can negotiate for discounts. BlazeMeter is more affordable than other products on the market but uses emulators instead of actual devices, which might be acceptable depending on your testing needs and budget.Additionally, it allows you to carry over unused virtual users to the next subscription, which can accumulate and save you money. Overall, I would rate BlazeMeter as an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as a tester. When it comes to 5G, there are loads of changes because we're trying to build the first 5G core network with the standalone architecture. Everything is based on APIs and API-based communications with a new HTTP/2 protocol. When we build the core network, we constantly change and tweak the network.

When it comes to testing, whether it's with Postman or any other tool, normally we run the test, make sure it works, and then move on. I was pretty impressed with [Runscope] because we can keep the test running 24/7 and are able to see feedback at any time.

A proper feedback loop is enabled through their graphical user interface. We can add loads of validation criteria. As a team, if we make changes and something fails on the core service, we can actually find it. 

For example, we had a security patch that was deployed on one of the components. [Runscope] immediately identified that the network mode failed at that API layer. The monitoring capability allows us to provide fast feedback. 

We can also trigger it with Jenkins Pipelines. We can integrate it into our DevOps quite easily, and they have webhooks. The validation criteria is quite simple. Most of the team love it and the stakeholders love the feedback loop as well. They can look at it, run it, and see what's happening.

The final solution will be across four different locations. The performance will run in a specific location. [Runscope] will run across different locations and test different development environments. At the moment, it's only on two environments. One is a sandbox where we experiment, and one is a real environment where we test the core network.

There are around 10 to 15 people using the application, but some of them only view the results. They're not always checking whether it works or not. We have multiple endpoints.

We use the solution on-premises.

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. 

For example, an IMEI number should be a 15 digit number. If you need various combinations of it, BlazeMeter can do it as long as we can provide regular expressions and say, "The numbers should be in this format." Mobile subscriber identities, which are pretty common in the telecom world, are easy. This solution has changed how we test things. Fundamentally, it helped us a lot.

Previously, most of the test projects that I delivered before I moved into automation used to take months. Now, the entire API test is completed within minutes. Because we look at millisecond latency, the tests don't take any longer. It's less than a minute. 

The moment those tests run on schedule, I don't really need to do anything. I just concentrate on what other tests I can add and what other areas I can think of. 

Recently, I have seen BlazeMeter's other products in their roadmap, and they're really cool products. They use some AI and machine learning to build new API level tests. I don't think it's available to the wider market yet, but there are some really cool features they're developing.

BlazeMeter reduced our test operating costs by quite a lot because normally to do the same level of testing, we need loads of resources, which are expensive. Contractors and specialists are expensive, and offshore is quite expensive. However we do it, we have to spend a lot of time. Running those tests manually, managing the data manually, and updating the data manually take a lot of time and effort. With this project, we definitely save a lot in costs, and we give confidence to the stakeholders.

For previous projects and even smaller projects, we used to charge 100k to 200K for testing. We're using BlazeMeter for massive programs, and the cost is a lot less.

Scheduling is the most valuable feature. You can run the test 24/7 and then integrate it into the on-premises internal APIs. How it connects to the internal APIs and how it secures the data is very important for us and definitely helped us.

It enables the creation of test data that can be used both for performance and functional testing of any application. Within the performance module of BlazeMeter, they have a different capability that supports performance testing. We have the performance test run on schedule, which is quite nice. It uses something called the Taurus framework. We built our own containers with the Taurus framework, but we moved to BlazeMeter because of the security vulnerabilities with Log4j. 

They've been more proactive in fixing those, but it was quite hard for us. We did it over five days, but they came back with the fixes in two days. We realized that their container solutions are much more secure. But at the same time, when it comes to [Runscope]. they have yet to add the data-driven approach, but they are really good. They support test data creation in their functional module, but there could be a few improvements made in test data management on [Runscope].

The ability to create performance and functional test data that can be used for testing any application is very important to our organization because we're looking at big loads of customers moving onto 5G standalone architecture. We're also looking at Narrowband IoT, machine-to-machine communications, and vehicle-to-vehicle communications. 

All of these require the new low latency tests, so that if we ship a piece of telecom equipment and move the customers onto the new 5G architecture, we can be confident enough to say, "Yes, this works perfectly."

Also, running those tests continuously means we can give assurance to our stakeholders and customers that we can build the applications in a way that can support the load. There are more than 20 million customers in the UK, and there's growing traffic on private networks and on IoT. As the technology shifts, we need to give assurance to our customers.

The ease of test data creation using BlazeMeter is the best part of the solution. I worked with them on the test data creation and how they provided feedback in the early days. It was really good. They have implemented it on the performance and mock services. Originally, we managed the test data on CSVs and then ran it with JMeter scripts. It was good, but the way BlazeMeter created mocks with regular expressions and the test data is quite nice. It reduced some of the challenges that we had, and managing some of the data on cloud is really good. 

The features are really cool, and it also shifts the testing to the left because even before you have the software, you can build a mock, build the test cases in [Runscope], and work on different API specifications. Then, you can actually test the application before it is deployed and even before any development. That feedback is quite useful.

BlazeMeter provides the functional module. They provide the performance testing, and it's all based on JMeter, which is really nice. JMeter is an open-source tool. You can upload your JMeter scripts back into the performance tab, and you can run off it. It's really brilliant and gives us the ability to run the test from anywhere in the world.

[Runscope] provides the capability to run test cases from different locations across the world, but we use it on-premises, which is quite nice. The reporting capability is really good. When the test fails, it sends a message. When it passes again, it sends a message. We know what's happening. The integration back into Teams is interesting because you can put the dashboard on Teams, which is nice.

It's really important that BlazeMeter is a cloud-based and open-source testing platform because for some of the functionalities, we don't always need to rely on BlazeMeter reporting. Their reporting is really good. Having the ability to use open-source tools means we can also publish it to our internal logging mechanisms. We have done loads of integrations. We also worked with them on developing the HTTP/2 plugin, which is now available open-source. 

The way they have collaborated and how they support open-source tools is really brilliant because that's how we came to know that the JMeter HTTP/2 plugin was provided by BlazeMeter, so we contacted them. We already tried that open-source tool and it was working at that stage. We started off with the mocks, using open API specifications. They also provide free trial versions.

With the shift-left, we build a mock and then start to use [Runscope] to validate those test cases. At that stage, we know even before the application is deployed that we can actually get something moving. When the real application is available within that sprint, we already have cases that are being validated across mocks and immediately configure them with the real applications and real environment variables. For a majority of the time, it would work and sometimes it might be a case where we update the data and then at that stage, we get the test cases to work. The moment we do that, we put it on schedule 24/7, every hour or every half an hour, depending on the number of changes that we do on the specific nodes. We always know whether or not it works.

This solution absolutely helps us implement shift-left testing. We really started building our core network this year. Last year, it was all about the planning phase. We almost got our APIs and everything automated with the mocks. We started to use the feedback loop and knew which ones worked. We did a lot of work around our own automation frameworks and with [Runscope]. 

We stopped some of the work we did on our own automation frameworks and slowly started to move them into BlazeMeter. We knew that as long as the tool supported it, we would continue with that. If we hit a problem, then we would see. At this stage, a majority of the work is done on the BlazeMeter set of tools, which is really nice because we started off with our own JMeter data framework test.

BlazeMeter competes with the tools we have built in-house, and there's no way we can match their efficiency, which is why we slowly moved to BlazeMeter. The team loves it.

We also use BlazeMeter's ability to build test data on-the-fly. Sometimes when we run the test, we realize that some of the information has to be changed. I just click on it and it opens on a web interface. I'll update the number in my columns because CSV also displays it as a table. For us, it's a lot easier. We don't have to go back into Excel, open a CSA, manipulate the data, do a git check, etc.

I like that the fly test data meets compliance standards because you get that feedback immediately, and it's not like they're holding the data somewhere else. We can also pull in the data from our own systems. It's all encrypted, so it's secure.

Generating reports off BlazeMeter is also quite nice. You can just click export or you can click on executed reports.

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.

I have been using this solution for more than a year and a half.

I came across BlazeMeter because I was looking for something around mock services. I was also looking for a product or tool that tests HTTP/2, particularly HTTP/3 because the 5G core network is built on HTTP/2. I couldn't find a tool other than BlazeMeter that supports it.

I tried to build mock services and tested the solution. Once I was happy, I also realized they have BlazeMeter [Runscope], so I wanted to try it.

It's stable. I wouldn't say any application is without bugs, but I haven't seen many. We had issues once or twice, but it was mostly with browser caching. There haven't been any major issues, but there were improvements that could be made in a couple of areas. They were always happy to listen to us. They had their product teams, product owners, and product managers listen to our feedback. They would slowly take the right feedback and try to implement some of the features we wanted. They always ask us, "What is your priority? What will make the best impact for you as a customer?" We give our honest feedback. When we say what we need, they know that many other customers will love it.

They were also really good with Log4j vulnerabilities. They came back with a fix less than two days after that came out. We had to turn off the services, but it was all good because [Runscope] didn't have an immediate impact. It was the performance container. They had some vulnerabilities because the original JMeter uses some of those Log4j packages. They had to fix the log of JMeter and then update their container.

It's very scalable. The solution is built for scalability. I didn't know that we could even move into this sort of API world. I used to think, "We do those tests like this." JMeter provides its own sort of capability, but with BlazeMeter, there's a wow factor.

We plan to increase coverage as much as possible.

I would rate technical support 10 out of 10.

BlazeMeter absolutely helps bridge agile and COE teams. We had some of the BlazeMeter team invited into our show and tell when we started. They saw our work and were quite happy. We showed them how we build our test cases. They also provided the feedback loop and told us what we could improve in different areas.

We also have a regular weekly call with them to say, "These are the things that are working or not working," and they take that feedback. We'll get a response from them within a few weeks, or sometimes in a few days or a few hours, depending on the issue. If it's a new feature, it might take two or three weeks of additional development. If it's a small bug, they get back to us within hours. If it's a problem on our side, they have somebody on their team for support. I was really surprised to see tools provided to do that because I haven't seen anything like that with other tools. When there's a problem, they respond quickly.

Positive

We switched because we started off with a BDD framework that was done in-house. We realized that the number of security vulnerabilities that come off Docker containers was a risk to us.

We still continue with that work because we had to move toward mutual DLS in the wild too. We have that working at the moment, along with BlazeMeter. We've tried Postman, but it didn't support HTTP/2 when we looked a year and a half ago.

I did most of the initial setup. We had to go through proxies and more when we connected to it. I currently use the Docker-based one because they support Docker and Kubernetes. At the moment, it's deployed in one or two locations, one is a sandbox for experimenting, and one in an actual development site, which is really good.

The initial deployment was very easy. It took a few hours. I forgot the proxy part, but once I did that, it was all good.

We can deploy a mock to build the application, and if we want to do it on-premises, as long as we have a Linux-based server, we can do it in 15 or 20 minutes. I was surprised because the moment it showed the hundreds of combinations for APIs that would happen, I was a bit shocked, but then I understood what it was doing.

I have a team of engineers who work on the solution and the different APIs that we need to support. I have two engineers who are really good with BlazeMeter. They were part of the virtualization team. There are a few engineers who started off with learning JMeter from YouTube and then did BlazeMeter University.

Most of the time, maintenance is done on the cloud. Because we are behind the proxy, we recently realized that when they did an upgrade, the upgrade failed and it took down the service. We provided that feedback, so the next time they do automated upgrades, we won't have any issues. Other than that, we haven't had any issues.

Since deployment, we use this solution every day. We have seen the value from the beginning because it helped us build our automation frameworks. It helped us understand how we can build better test cases, better automation test cases, how the feedback loop is enabled, etc. 

It's saved us a lot of time. It reduces the overall test intervals. We can run the test quite quickly. We can provide confidence to stakeholders. When trying to move toward DevOps and new ways of working, so the feedback loops need to be fast enough. When we deploy a change, we want to get fast feedback. That's very important, and BlazeMeter allows us to do that. 

We know that we can always trigger the test through [Runscope] on demand. At any point in time, it'll give us fast feedback immediately. It's quite easy to integrate with tools like Jenkins and Digital.ai, which is an overall orchestrator.

We tried to go the Jenkins route, but we realized that we don't even need to do that. The solution provided nice APIs that can work with this sort of CI/CD. They have webhooks and different ways of triggering it. They have built-in plugins to Jenkins for Jmeter, BlazeMeter, etc. They understand how the automation frameworks and tools work.

Their Taurus framework, which they built for the open-source community, is quite brilliant on its own, but BlazeMeter offers much more. Although it's built on the Taurus framework, you can still have test levels, you can group tests, etc.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

We try to avoid scripting. We use the scriptless testing functionality about 95% of the time. With JMeter, you don't need a lot of scripting. I don't need to know a lot of automation or programming at this stage to use it.

We haven't faced any challenges in getting multiple teams to adopt BlazeMeter. I created a sandbox for my own team where they can experiment. People really wanted access to it, so I added more and more people, and the designers are now part of it.

For others who are evaluating this solution, my advice is to do the BlazeMeter University course first before you start to use the product. It will give you a general understanding of what it is. It only takes half an hour to an hour.

You don't always need to finish the course or pass the exam, but doing the course itself will definitely help. They have a JMeter basic and advanced course and a Taurus framework course. They have an API monitoring course, which will help for [Runscope], and one for mocks. Most of the courses are quick videos explaining what the product does and how it works. At that stage, you can go back and build your first automation test case on JMeter or [Runscope]. It's brilliant.

I work in a bank where we use BlazeMeter to conduct our load testing or performance testing. In our company, we utilize multiple machines, and multiple projects are hosted on BlazeMeter.

The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare. The response time and the calls we make in our company are easy to trace with the help of BlazeMeter.

There is a tab in Blazemeter named Request Stats Report where improvements are required. If I have to go and find a particular timeline, which might be in a 15 or 20-minute window, there are no places or options where I can enter the perfect or exact timelines I want to find. You have the pointers to drag from one place to another, but that doesn't give me much freedom to get or find a timeline. Basically, on a tab in Blazemeter named Request Stats Report, there should be the start time and end time. In BlazeMeter's Request Stats Report, users should have an option where they can select and manually enter the test start and test end time to get the stats for a particular time period.

Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required.

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year.

The load testing time in BlazeMeter is too high since, in our company, we have seen that it takes four to five minutes to do an entire load testing process, and after that, we run the tests, which is a big problem for us.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

I see certain limitations when it comes to the scalability part of BlazeMeter since, in our company, we have faced multiple interruptions, because of which we had to stop certain testing processes.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

I cannot give you an exact number related to the number of users of BlazeMeter in our company since we are just one of the teams in the company that uses the tool. I believe that around 150 to 200 people in my company use BlazeMeter.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I only have experience with BlazeMeter.

I rate the product's initial setup around seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup, and ten is an easy setup.

The time taken for the deployment of BlazeMeter varies since we have multiple types of applications in our company. If I have to deploy something on BlazeMeter, the time range for the deployment process can be somewhere between 30 to 120 minutes.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

BlazeMeter is a supportive tool in terms of the fact that it is easy to migrate from one system to another. BlazeMeter offers an easy infrastructure that allows for migration, if needed, in a well-organized manner, but it is not an optimized tool yet since I still see a lot of problems in it.

I rate the overall tool a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for BlazeMeter is performance testing. We leverage BlazeMeter as our enterprise performance testing platform. Multiple teams have access to it, and we execute all of our load tests with BlazeMeter and do all the reporting through it. We also use it for mock services.

We have a hybrid deployment model. The solution is hosted and maintained by BlazeMeter. We also have on-premise locations within our network that allow us to load test applications behind our corporate firewalls. That's for test environments and non-production applications that are not externally available. It's a hybrid role that is mostly SaaS, but the on-premises component allows us to execute those load tests and report the results back to the BlazeMeter SaaS solution.

The cloud provider is GCP. BlazeMeter also grants access to Azure and AWS locations which you can execute load tests from. They engaged with all three of the major cloud providers.

BlazeMeter gives us a centralized place to execute load tests, do reporting, and have different levels of user access control. BlazeMeter has a full API, which is the feature that's given us a lot of value. It allows us to integrate with BlazeMeter in our CI/CD pipelines, or any other fashion, using their APIs. It helps increase our speed of testing, our reporting, and our reporting consistency, and gives us a central repository for all of our tests, execution artifacts, and results.

BlazeMeter added a mock services portion. We used to leverage a different product for mock services, and now that's all done within BlazeMeter. Mock services help us tremendously with testing efforts and being able to mock out vendor calls or other downstream API calls that might impact our load testing efforts. We can very easily mock them out within the same platform that hosts our load tests. That's been a huge time saver and a great value add.

BlazeMeter absolutely helps bridge Agile and CoE teams. It gives us both options. BlazeMeter is designed so that we can grant access to whoever needs it. We can grant access to developers and anyone else on an Agile team. It allows us to shift left even farther than a traditional center of excellence approach would allow us.

It absolutely helps us implement shift-left testing. One of the biggest features of shifting left is BlazeMeter's full, open API. Regardless of the tools we're leveraging to build and deploy our applications, we can integrate them with BlazeMeter, whether that's Jenkins or some other pipeline technology. Because BlazeMeter has a full API, it lets us start tests, end tests, and edit tests. If we can name it, it can be done via the API. It tremendously helps us shift left, run tests on demand, and encode builds.

Overall, using BlazeMeter decreased our test cycle times, particularly because of the mock service availability and the ease with which we can stand out mock services, or in the case of an Agile approach, our development teams can stand out mock services to aid them in their testing. 

It's fast, and the ability to integrate with pipelines increases our velocity and allows us to test faster and get results back to the stakeholders even quicker than before.

The overall product is less costly than our past solutions, so we've absolutely saved money.

The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them.

The reporting feature runs parallel with orchestration. BlazeMeter gives me aggregated reports, automates them, and allows me to execute scheduled tests easily on my on-premise infrastructure.

BlazeMeter's range of test tools is fantastic. BlazeMeter supports all sorts of different open-source tools, like JMeter and Gatling, and different web driver versions, like Python and YAML. If it's open-source, BlazeMeter supports it for the most part.

It's very important to me that BlazeMeter is a cloud-based and open-source testing platform because, from a consumer perspective, I don't have to host that infrastructure myself. Everything my end users interact with in the front-end UI is SaaS and cloud-based. We don't have to manage and deploy all of that, which takes a lot of burden off of my company.

The open-source testing platform is fantastic. They support all of the open-source tools, which gives us the latest and greatest that's out there. We don't have to deal with proprietary formats. A secondary bonus of being open-source and so widely used is that there is a tremendous amount of help and support for the tools that BlazeMeter supports.

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.

I have used this solution for almost five years.

The stability has absolutely gotten better over the years. They had some challenges when they initially migrated the platform to GCP, but most of those were resolved. Overall, they have very high availability for their platform. If there's an issue, they have a status page where they publish updates to keep customers in the loop. 

If you email their support team or open a ticket through the application, they're always very quick to respond when there's a more global uptime issue or something like that. Overall, they have very high availability.

Technical support is absolutely phenomenal. I've worked with them very closely on many occasions. Whether it's because we found a bug on their side, or an issue we're having with our on-premises infrastructure, they're always there, always willing to support, and are very knowledgeable.

I would rate technical support as nine out of ten.

Positive

We previously used HP Performance Center. We used HP Virtual User Generator as a predecessor to JMeter for our scripting challenges.

We switched because it's a very outdated tool and toolset. BlazeMeter is a more modern solution. It supports many more tools, and it allows us to solve problems that were blocked by the old solution. 

The BlazeMeter platform is designed to be CI/CD, so it has continuous integration, it's continuous delivery-friendly, Agile-friendly, and it has all of the modern software development methodologies. 

Our old solution didn't really cooperate with that. It didn't have the API or any of the test data functionality that we've talked about with generating or pulling test data. It didn't have any of the mock services. BlazeMeter gave us the kind of one-stop-shop option that allows us to accelerate our development and velocity within our Agile space.

From my company's side, I'm the "owner" of BlazeMeter. I worked with a support team to set up the on-premises infrastructure. I still work with them.

Deployment was straightforward and simple. We pulled some Docker images and deployed them. The whole on-premise deployment methodology is containerized, whether it's standalone unit servers running Docker or a Kubernetes deployment, which allows you to deploy on-premise BlazeMeter agents through a Kubernetes cluster and your own GCP environment or on-premises Kubernetes environment.

We worked directly with BlazeMeter.

We evaluated Load.io and a couple of other solutions. When we brought on BlazeMeter five years ago, they were absolutely the leader in the pack, and I believe they still are. They have a much more mature solution and an enterprise feel. The whole platform is much more developed and user-friendly than some of the other options we evaluated. 

I don't know if there are any features in other platforms that BlazeMeter didn't have; it was mostly the other way around. There were things BlazeMeter had that other platforms didn't have, and existing relationships with the company that used to own BlazeMeter, Broadcom.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

It's a fantastic solution and can do so many things. But unless you have a team that's already very experienced with JMeter and BlazeMeter, there will be some ramp-up time to get people used to the new platform. Once you're there, the features and functionality of BlazeMeter will let you do things that were absolutely not feasible on your previous platforms.

We don't really leverage the actual test data integration and creation functionality, but we leverage some of the synthetic data creation. BlazeMeter will let you synthetically generate data for load tests, API, or mock services. We have leveraged that, but we have not leveraged some of the more advanced functionality that ties in with test data management.

The ability to create both performance and functional testing data is not very important to us. A lot of the applications we test are very data-dependent and dependent on multiple downstream systems. We don't leverage a lot of the synthetic data creation, as much as some other organizations might.

We don't extensively use BlazeMeter's ability to build test data on-the-fly. We use it to synthetically generate some test data, but a majority of our applications rely on existing data. We mine that in the traditional sense. We don't generate a lot of synthetic test data or fresh test data for each execution.

BlazeMeter hasn't directly affected our ability to address test data challenges. We don't directly leverage a lot of the test data functionality built into BlazeMeter, but we're trying to move in that direction. We have a lot of other limitations on the consumer side that don't really let us leverage that as much as we could. It certainly seems like a great feature set that would be very valuable for a lot of customers, but so much of our testing is done with existing data.

We haven't had any significant challenges with getting our teams to adopt BlazeMeter. There were just typical obstacles when trying to get people to adopt anything that's new and foreign to them. Once most of our users actually spent time using the platform, they really enjoyed it and continued to use it. 

There were no significant hurdles. Their UI is very well-designed and user-friendly. Perforce puts a lot of effort into designing its features and functionalities to be user-friendly. I've participated in a few sessions with them for upcoming features and wire frameworks of new functionalities.

As our company wanted to use a cloud solution, we opted for BlazeMeter instead of an on-premises load generator.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports.

Integration with APM tools is an area where the product has certain shortcomings and needs improvement. Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved.

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year.

It has been stable so far as per our company's user's usage.

It is a scalable solution. My company does not have a high user load to deal with using the product.

Our company has not made many critical errors in getting technical support. Whatever difficulties our company has faced with the tool, we got support from online sources or through raising a ticket. Also, the response from the support team has been good.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I use JMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was user-friendly.

The solution is deployed on the browser.

The solution can be deployed in two to three days.

It is an averagely priced product. One of the reasons my company opted for the tool is because it is an averagely-priced product. Though we do have an APM tool in place, we chose BlazeMeter for cloud testing in our company.

BlazeMeter is the solution my company chose since it is the only tool we found compatible with JMeter. BlazeMeter's help-oriented resources and documentation support JMeter too extensively.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

Whenever I am not able to record the script with the JMeter, I use BlazeMeter extensions to record the scripts. Whenever there is a need to execute something in the cloud, my company uses BlazeMeter.

There are some advantageous features that are available in BlazeMeter. The type of HTML reports that can be downloaded from BlazeMeter can be shown to the clients so that they can be provided with a clear picture in a clean way, allowing even a layperson to be able to understand the metrics our company shows with the help of BlazeMeter.

Whenever we use BlazeMeter for the ramp-up and designing the scenarios in our company, we also use JMeter or other load testing tools, which provide some convenience in areas where the granularity can be maintained in seconds. The ramp-up and ramp-down require our company to use the granularity for a few minutes, making it an area where improvements are required to be able to use the granularity in seconds. From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved.

Whenever we discuss the development stage, JMeter has plug-ins and other extensions in the area of WebSockets, and it is the same case in terms of the kind of extensions provided by JMeter that are available in LoadRunner. BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet. Decoding the scripts that contain the applications with Java Applet is not possible with BlazeMeter or even with JMeter, and it includes some Oracle and desktop applications, too.

I have experience with BlazeMeter.

I didn't get much opportunity to work on the tool, but as per my experience, I can say that BlazeMeter serves as an alternate tool whenever my company faces some hurdles or challenges with the JMeter and k6. To record the scripts, I use BlazeMeter as an extension. With BlazeMeter, it is very easy to identify if a request belongs to an application or not, and in the initial phase itself, we can neglect the requests that don't belong to the application. In BlazeMeter, depending upon the requests, users can select a particular domain.

Though the product is scalable, I found the tool to be a bit tricky while setting up the scenario for the stress test and during step-up and step-down kind of scenario setup.

I have experience with Grafana and JMeter.

Whenever a comparison is made between JMeter and BlazeMeter, there are a lot of differences one can observe. With JMeter, our company has to concentrate on the features as it is an open-source tool that works with Java. The configuration of the systems should have some high-end configuration, and the heap size depends upon the load our company uses. JMeter can be used in UI or GUI mode or in a non-GUI mode. If users have to go with a smoke test and the preparation of scripts, the GUI mode of JMeter can be used. For the actual execution of load testing, we have to go with JMeter's non-GUI mode. With the non-GUI mode, until the completion of the test, I could see the percentage of the error, but I couldn't see what kind of error was there in the application. In JMeter, I had to wait until the completion of the entire test. When we use the BlazeMeter cloud as a licensed tool in our company, we do have to deal with the setup of any configuration area. With BlazeMeter, whenever our company executes the load test, parallelly we can monitor what kind of errors we get, and if possible, we can have a word with the development team in parallel and we can solve all the issues so we don't need to wait until the completion of the tests as some of them may be longer than thirty minutes to an hour. In current situations, everything works in the cloud, and every request and every click gets counted in the cost. In BlazeMeter, there is no need to wait till completion of the one hour or until the end of the testing phase. BlazeMeter provides better reporting, but it takes much longer to do so, making it an area of concern where improvements are required. It is not always sufficient to only use BlazeMeter.

The product's initial setup phase was simple.

The solution can be deployed in less than five minutes.

When compared with the cost of the licenses of other tools, BlazeMeter's license price is good.

Currently, I am looking out for Java Applet and Oracle applications. I want something that will support the load testing phase for the tools that Java Applet and Oracle support.

I rate the overall tool between six and seven out of ten.

I occasionally used BlazeMeter for load testing to get insights into log distribution and generate reports.

It is a good choice for people transitioning to cloud-based load testing tools and its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options.

Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations. Enhancements in data import/export and integration with other tools could be beneficial. Additionally, providing support for certain tools like Grafana, which some competitors offer, would be a good extension to consider.

I haven't noticed any stability issues with BlazeMeter so far. 

BlazeMeter's scalability for our company depends on the cost and our testing needs. It is a complex decision since it is all about how much testing we do, for how long, and what our budget allows. It is all about finding the right balance between our requirements and affordability.

I haven't directly used BlazeMeter's technical support, but I have found that their online resources and community are quite responsive. They have a strong presence on sites like Stack Overflow, with experts who provide quick assistance.

The initial setup is fairly simple. Deploying BlazeMeter is a quick process and it takes just a couple of minutes. You need to have an account with them, upload your test scripts from your local machine, and then configure and initiate the test.

Overall, I would rate BlazeMeter as an eight out of ten.

BlazeMeter is a very good tool to add users and ramp up things, making them a few of its very good features.

BlazeMeter is a very handy tool requiring drag and drop to operate., but 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. In our company, we are mostly unable to capture logs or events with BlazeMeter. We want BlazeMeter to assimilate a mobile app, especially sincere company deals in mobile apps, and we wish to conduct testing using BlazeMeter. The solution has been good so far, but JMeter is one area that has been tricky for me since I cannot generate events.

I cannot speak about a particular weakness in the tool, but it is a tricky product since those who want to use it need to depend on another tool called JMeter. JMeter is required to get the scripts and JMX file before being able to run on BlazeMeter.

In our company, an APK is generated whenever we develop mobile apps, and when I drag and drop it as a script, a JMX file should be generated, which is a feature not included in the solution. The aforementioned area where the solution lacks can be considered for improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for two months. I am currently an end user of the tool using BlazeMeter's trial version.

It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company.

It is a scalable solution, but our company currently uses the tool's free version, and we have not opted for its paid version. Considering the aforementioned fact, I can't comment on the solution's scalability though I have heard from one of my friends that the product's scalability is good.

Around 50 people can use the product in my company.

In my company, we haven't contacted the solution's technical support since we are still exploring the product as we are a startup company. We are conducting a trial of all the tools available to us so that we can choose the ones that suit our company at the end of the process.

The tool's implementation is done since my company deals more in mobile apps than web apps.

My company is a health app provider making our process or business completely different in the market. We want a product that is not an API to test the performance of our company's apps, so we consider BlazeMeter to be a good option.

My company is looking for options, like LoadRunner tools, that can be a better choice than BlazeMeter.

My company needs to search for better options since we feel that we will have around a million users once we launch our health app in India. I want a tool that can help me test the app's performance, especially if a million users are using it.

BlazeMeter is a tool that is easy to use.

Interface and report generation capabilities make the tool very handy for its users. The only tricky area in the solution is running BlazeMeter on JMeter, an open-source tool making it a very complex part for me.

There are different technical stacks in the market in which one needs to invest. After the testing phase, one may go for an expensive product in the market. Once there is a stable product in the market and the company can generate revenue, then it is feasible to go for the paid version, which is an option available in JMeter, so I can recommend it to others. BlazeMeter's paid version can be a bit expensive compared to JMeter.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.