BlazeMeter Reviews

BlazeMeter is user-friendly and excellent. My company prefers the licensed version of BlazeMeter, which I occasionally use for scripting and designing on the CentOS site, specifically for creating real-world scenarios.

In LoadRunner, we currently cannot create realistic user load behavior as effectively.

I use BlazeMeter occasionally, depending on the project. It's not used for everything but when necessary, especially with JMeter, for specific testing scenarios. So, my use cases depend on and vary according to the project. 

In load testing, BlazeMeter is utilized to create realistic user behavior. It's particularly friendly for web LoadRunner users, providing proper pacing and timing control. 

Moreover, it allows for comprehensive control over user behavior across scripts, such as ramp-up and steady-state phases, which is crucial for conducting incremental load tests and more. This level of control isn't as easily achievable with other tools, but with JMeter and BlazeMeter, it's possible.

Incremental load testing is a type of test you can perform with JMeter. It's a technique that isn't straightforward without BlazeMeter. BlazeMeter facilitates this process.

In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. 

BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally.

This global simulation capability is a significant advantage of holding a cloud license with BlazeMeter.

We also tried the ShiftLeft testing approach with BlazeMeter.

An area for improvement could be enhancing BlazeMeter's integration with automation scripts. 

It would be beneficial if BlazeMeter could support automation frameworks more effectively, including the use of Selenium scripts for both manual and automated load testing.

Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options. A lot of products are coming out, and BlazeMeter pricing is a factor. 

For example, LoadStorm by Neustar is integrated with built-in APMs. It won't capture all server stats, but it will collect the minimum important aspects – CPU consumption, utilization rate, and how much a single server is being stressed. If BlazeMeter offered similar functionality, it would be fantastic.

I started using it almost four years ago and continue to use it as needed.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. It's good. But one suggestion – people tend to rate based on cost these days. Because of that pricing, there are a lot of other new technologies on the market. That's why some people integrate BlazeMeter with an Application Performance Monitor (APM) tool, like Elastic Search or Elastic module. You can pull anything, even CPU utilization or memory usage, by installing agents.

It's actually really good.  

BlazeMeter is a scalable product. It's user-friendly and easy to operate, which I find appealing.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

I used Micro Focus LoadRunner. I transitioned from my previous company to a different company. In my previous company, they used LoadRunner for customer projects, with a license for around 500 users.

I've faced a lot of issues with LoadRunner. Even with proper Java configuration, it throws exceptions when I run the first couple of servers. Because of that, I had to use a different VM and install everything from scratch. After that, things worked smoothly with BlazeMeter.

Additionally, I utilize JMeter for several products and Webber out of curiosity.

The setup process for BlazeMeter is simple.

The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs. However, Neustar has more reasonable pricing. 

Most people don't prefer Neustar, but it is a good solution. 

I specialize in load testing, so I use both LoadRunner and BlazeMeter in parallel. 

I've previously worked with other tools like Neustar, where we were able to simulate load similarly. A noteworthy aspect of these tools is the ability to integrate automation scripts for load testing, which enhances their utility.

Neustar is actually replacing LoadRunner in our current environment. If we want to do both automation and load testing, I would choose Nustar. We can create Selenium scripts directly in Neustar, and automation engineers can use Selenium to create scripts that can then be called within Neustar.

BlazeMeter meets our needs well. It performs admirably for our purposes.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution to other users. 

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. 

Positive

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 BlazeMeter for performance testing.

BlazeMeter helps us to easily scale up the products for performance testing and increases the scalability of the applications, which are outside of the corporate network.

The user interface is good. The multitask user and cloud missions testing are nice features.

The scalability features still need improvement. They have recently added dynamic user features, so we should evaluate that, which may enhance scalability. Storage capacity should be increased. 

There is a shared file repository with a limit of 999 file storage along with each payload, which is a maximum of fifty MB. That should be increased. When we run JMeter scripts in BlazeMeter, the BlazeMeter user interface does not recognize the property files we use in JMeter. This needs to be addressed.

I have been working with BlazeMeter for five years.

BlazeMeter's scalability features need improvement. They have added the dynamic user feature recently, and we should evaluate this feature for better scalability.

The technical support is very good. I would give them ten out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with LoadRunner and BlazeMeter simultaneously.

BlazeMeter's pricing is competitive but can be negotiable.

I have worked with LoadRunner simultaneously with BlazeMeter.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

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.

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.

We use the solution for enterprise performance testing of various technologies including web services, APIs, and web GUIs.

We deployed the solution to increase our performance testing footprint, which we needed to upscale for the maturity of our operation. 

We have six on-prem load generators on our network, and the rest of our deployment is in the cloud. It's a very simple architectural design.

BlazeMeter opened up performance testing for us. Our old solution was a client-based performance testing tool, and for staff to access it, they needed to remotely connect to a Windows VM and book time with that controller. Now our tool is web-based, and we onboarded 12 to 14 teams to BlazeMeter, which would not have happened before. Our CoE team was the go-to for performance testing, but the solution has opened up the practice to the whole enterprise, making teams more self-sufficient, and that's the most significant benefit. Performance testing is no longer segregated to one team.

Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most.

We have a very high opinion of the range of test tools the solution provides, it has a great deal of potential and we are just scratching the surface of it currently. As our maturity and skillset with the product increase, we'll be able to leverage that more. For example, we don't really use mock services yet. We know how to, but we're still set in some of our ways. 

BlazeMeter being cloud-based and open-source is vital; it was one of our top priorities when choosing a solution. Much like the rest of the world, we're moving away from the old paradigm of the Windows days where we would bring up a server, get Windows licenses, an operating system, and maintain it all. With BlazeMeter, most of that is done for us, and we don't have to worry about infrastructure. We have on-prem load generators for teams needing to run load tests from within our network, and we need to maintain that capacity. However, we don't have to host anything outside of the load generators in the network, so the maintenance effort and cost are much less than they would be as a legacy system.  

The solution does bridge Agile and CoE teams. It's a shift-left tool, and testing comes in much earlier than in the past. BlazeMeter is a valuable asset in this regard. 

The tool helped us to implement shift-left testing. Many of our teams with the required skillset can include performance testing as part of their build runs. This may not be high-level testing; internally, we refer to it as early performance testing. It allows teams to confirm the software is functioning correctly early, which was not the case before. We would wait until a certain point in the SDLC before running a performance check, and now we're able to implement that much earlier in the process. 

We currently don't have any stats on changes in our test cycle times, but there is no doubt in my mind that BlazeMeter improved our software quality.

We have not faced challenges in getting multiple teams to adopt BlazeMeter. We onboarded around 50 users in three quarters, which is incredible considering we had two performance testers before implementing the solution. Our only challenge is skill sets, our staff wants to adopt the tool and understand its importance, but they may not have the resources or skillset to do so. Those with the necessary skillset are onboarded as soon as their project is greenlighted. 

Our biggest challenge is the skill set required to operate the solution because we used to have a centralized performance testing team. Now we've opened it up to other teams; some needed to onboard new resources. The solution is simple and user-friendly, but we still need the right staff to use it.

We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs.

We have been using the solution for about nine months.

The solution is very stable. We had a few issues with users getting 404 errors recently, but that's the first time we have encountered any problems in three quarters. 

The scalability is incredible. We could scale it to as big or small as we want, with our license being the sole limitation. The resources are in Docker containers in Docker images. We could scale within a few minutes if necessary. 

The technical support is excellent. When we had hiccups during deployment, they responded quickly with effective solutions for us.

Positive

We used other tools and switched because they weren't as user-friendly. BlazeMeter offered us the ability to increase our performance testing footprint without requiring a high level of performance testing expertise from our QA staff. Additionally, our old solutions were client-based, and BlazeMeter is cloud-based, providing all the advantages that come with that.

The deployment is very straightforward. That was one of our criteria, as we didn't want a complex new enterprise solution rollout. There were a few bumps during deployment, but most of that was on our side. BlazeMeter is relatively simple compared to other enterprise solutions we implemented.

Less than ten staff were involved in the deployment. We used Linux Enterprise to house the six on-premise load generators, and there were a couple of employees responsible for Docker, our solutions architect, and myself as the admin.

I don't have a concrete figure, but I can say once we sunset our old solution, that will save us a significant amount of money on infrastructure, licensing, and maintenance. I also think there is an ROI associated purely with the increased quality of our software, thanks to BlazeMeter.

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.

We carried out a proof of concept of four tools, which included BlazeMeter. It's more stable and mature, with well-documented APIs. BlazeMeter University was a significant consideration for us due to our requirements; it helped us roll out the solution to multiple teams. It seemed like APIs for the other solutions were an afterthought.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The solution enables the creation of test data for performance and functional testing, but our use is focused on performance testing. We don't particularly use functional testing, but we are currently talking about using test data management for functional testing. We have our in-house automation framework, so the ability to create both functional and performance test data isn't a high priority for us.  

We don't use BlazeMeter's ability to build test data on-the-fly, not because we aren't aware of it, but because we are still at the early stages with the solution. Until fairly recently, just one other person and I were in charge of performance testing for the entire company, so having self-sufficient teams is an immense change for us as an organization.

I would say it's critical to have the appropriate skillsets among the staff as we could deploy just about any solution in an enterprise. Still, it won't be used to its total capacity without the proper skills. BlazeMeter showed us how little performance testing we were doing before and how vital increasing that footprint is. We've onboarded 50 users; that's 50 users who were not engaged less than a year ago and can all carry-out performance testing.

This solution can work very well for enterprise companies with a more advanced skill pool to draw from. For beginners in this area, specific skills such as JMeter scripting are required to use the application. It's easier to use than most solutions but requires a particular skill set to deploy and operate successfully. A good solutions architect and QA leads are essential in evaluating any product.

Previously, to perform performance tests, we had to connect servers in the cloud, configure them to perform the test, and plot the results on a dashboard. BlazeMeter came to simplify all this work.

In terms of deployment, we are using local Linux servers (RHEL 7), and for the cloud, we are using EC2 servers with Amazon Linux. Our cloud provider is Amazon AWS.

With BlazeMeter, our main gains were in agility and efficiency in the execution of performance tests and delivery of post-test reports.

It has helped us to implement shift-left testing. It has certainly helped us to speed up the tests, and with that, we gained time to carry out tests in all development cycles.

It has the ability to build test data on-the-fly, and this on-the-fly test data meets compliance standards, which is very important for us. Real-time data helps us understand the behavior at each level of the test. So, we can define numbers that an application needs to achieve in the test to classify it as being OK or not. This data helps a lot in the real-time investigation. By looking at each level, we can identify the exact moment of degradation or “break”.

It decreased our test cycle times. I believe that we saved at least 50% of the time in preparation for the execution. Using BlazeMeter has greatly simplified our performance testing experience, especially the preparation part.

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.

BlazeMeter is a cloud-based and open-source testing platform, which is very important for us because we can be sure that we're using a tool that follows market trends and stays up-to-date.

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.

I have been using this solution for approximately 1 year.

It is very stable. We haven't seen any instability or unavailability issues so far.

It is scalable as per our needs. In our working model, the only team that uses BlazeMeter is ours. This solution is used only by our team whose mission is to bring performance tests to projects and squads.

They are very good. In the beginning, they held a workshop with our team, and whenever we ask questions, we are attended to without any problem. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We didn't use any other solution. We performed the tests manually.

As soon as we got to know this tool, we realized how important it would be and the benefits it would bring to the company. Its main benefits have been gains in agility and efficiency. 

For the performance tests that we carry out in the company, we only use BlazeMeter. I don't know any other tools. My view of BlazeMeter is that it is a very mature tool that delivers what it has set out to deliver in an excellent way.

I was not involved in its deployment. In terms of maintenance, the only maintenance is setting up new servers for use. This configuration is usually performed by us in the Performance team.

I don't have access to the information about its cost. So, I can't say if we have seen an ROI and if we have reduced our test operating costs.

We did not review other products.

BlazeMeter brings agility and efficiency in the preparation and execution of performance tests. With this, we gain time which is used to increase the scope of tests and anticipate possible problems.

BlazeMeter didn't help bridge Agile and CoE teams because we have a specific team. So, there was no involvement of professionals who work with agile. We gained agility and efficiency, but there was no involvement of any external team.

I would rate BlazeMeter a nine out of ten.

We are using it to execute performance testing for our website and mobile applications, including e-commerce solutions, internet banking, and more.

Our applications are in a cloud environment and have a lot of users using them at the same time. We are looking to create a better experience for the users. We execute this kind of performance setting to establish a baseline for response times and we use it to reduce them.

We are both a customer of BlazeMeter and a partner that implements it for other customers.

It helps us to work faster when doing performance testing. Because we're faster, we can better use our resources. We have more capacity for our backlog.

We have better visibility into test metrics by managing the reports and dashboards that present the results of test execution. That helps us to evaluate the performance parameters that the application should achieve. It has been great seeing the results that we are achieving.

It has definitely helped us to implement shift-left testing. By doing performance tests faster and earlier in the process, we have the opportunity to prevent performance issues in production. That aspect is very good.

In addition, the Scriptless Testing functionality means we can build a performance testing team in which some members don't need to have extreme programming or development experience. We can create a mixed team that has professionals with great expertise and less experienced people so that we can prepare them for the future.

Another benefit is the ability to build test data on-the-fly. That helps us increase test coverage. It's one of the main functionalities that helps us with that. It has also decreased our test cycle times by almost 35 percent, but I do believe that it could be even more than that.

One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before.

It can also be used for both performance and functional testing of any application and we can manage different kinds of data to better cover the performance and functional testing of the applications. For example, if we need different kinds of data to test the different uses of an application, we can use this platform to help us with that. 

Another thing we like is that while it's difficult sometimes to connect this kind of performance test solution with application performance monitoring solutions, BlazeMeter has been great. Our experience with that has been great.

BlazeMeter is the perfect tool for us because it works with cloud and open source and other vendors' solutions. It's very good with other testing solutions in both our and our customers' ecosystems. For example, it's very good for perfecting mobile solutions and with other test data management solutions. It's very easy to integrate it into the software testing processes and tools that our customers are using.

It's also very good at bridging Agile and CoE teams. One thing that we are exploring right now, to make sure it works correctly, is the integration of BlazeMeter in the continuous integration and continuous delivery journey.

I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on.

I have been using BlazeMeter for three to four years.

I don't recall having any issues with its stability. I'm extremely satisfied with that.

The scalability is great. We can have a lot of virtual users when we need them.

We use BlazeMeter in different environments because we have customers with on-prem and cloud solutions.

I'm very happy with the technical support. They have answered all our needs.

Positive

We went with BlazeMeter because we can easily access the platform through the internet and because it is very easy to incorporate it into our processes.

The return on investment is guaranteed with BlazeMeter. If you only look at the price, you will only see one side of the financial equation. We like to evaluate the return on investment in terms of reduced testing time, increased productivity, and the ability to deliver many more features into production with BlazeMeter.

I've worked with other performance testing, service virtualization, and test data management solutions. I have been working in the software testing area since 2000.

People love using JMeter, which is an open-source solution, but I prefer BlazeMeter because we can easily orchestrate a lot of testing. It has additional features that help make our performance and non-functional-requirements testing better, because we can integrate it with functional testing. And there are service virtualization and test data management features in the same solution. In a good number of cases, we only need BlazeMeter to do many things, rather than using two or three tools to do the same job. It's a single workplace where we can do many things.

My advice would be not to look only at the price as the only point of decision. Evaluate if the tool is a good fit with your business and challenges.

We are using the SaaS solution. For companies that want to start, it's a better approach because it's easy to use: Pay and go. Of course, in large accounts, we are facing companies that are looking not only for cloud and private cloud, but for hybrid solutions where it is installed on-premises and in the cloud. BlazeMeter is up to this kind of challenge.

Adoption is a challenge that we face with every new tool or process. Because BlazeMeter is easy to use, we can adopt it faster. For developers and Agile teams, it's very helpful when we can use something quickly. That has helped a lot in the adoption.

The level of maintenance is okay. It is nothing that would create barriers for us. We have a team of eight people involved in the solution, and their roles include administration and performance testing.

Blazemeter is one of the top-three that I have found. It doesn't have any negative points compared to others.