BlazeMeter Reviews

I'm working for a telecommunications client. We are using BlazeMeter's Mock Services as a priority for performance testing, along with API monitoring. These functions are each used on different projects.

One of the projects for this client is completely based on Mock Services and, with the help of that functionality, we are able to complete end-to-end testing with all the dependent components.

There are third-company suppliers who provide components that need to be tested, but most of the time we do not get those components on time. Normally, we would wait until the development is completed and only then go for automation. But now, with the help of the Mock Services, once we get the source code, we upload it directly into the Mock Services and into the API monitoring. Once we get the tracers, we are ready to point to the actual instances and test things immediately. By the time we get to that stage, we are ready for the market. That means that even before getting the complete component, we can start working with something. There is no need to wait. As a result of the Mock Services, the time it takes us to develop API automation is minimized.

Also, we had a number of performance testing tools, but we had to integrate third-party applications for generating reports. That was a pain point for us when it came to showcasing things to stakeholders so that they could be aware of what was happening. But now, everything is available once the performance testing is completed. We can immediately see the reports, and when a test is running, I can share the execution page with anyone else, as a link. That means they can view exactly what is happening, moment by moment, regarding the response time, request time, and latency. That feature is not available in some of the other applications and possibly not in any of the other applications.

One of the areas that BlazeMeter benefits us is our test cycle times. In the past, if there was a defect with a component, we would have to wait until the issue was fixed. And even though we were not testing that particular component, because of the dependency of that component, we would have to wait until the issue was fixed. If it ended up going beyond the deadline for the release cycle, we would leave that test case for the next release.

With the help of the Mock Services, we are overcoming everything. Wherever we are facing issues, whether they will be long term or temporary, by implementing the Mock Services we can bypass the faulty components that are not needed for our particular testing. In that way, we are able to reduce our cycle times. In addition, we have some physical devices and network devices in our testing. It takes a week to create physical devices in a virtual way. Instead, with the Mock Services we are creating them in a minute, and that helps our end-to-end testing to be completed on time. The benefit of BlazeMeter's Mock Services is that it takes us through our testing early in the cycle.

In a single line of business, in a particular call flow, if we have 1,000 test cases per release, 100 to 200 of them are with the help of the Mock Services. That saves us time, money, and manpower.

And before we had BlazeMeter's API monitoring, if there were 10 components and anything was down, we would not be aware. We would not send a heartbeat every second to all of the components to check whether they were down or up. The API monitoring is a real benefit for us because we are able to schedule it for every 30 minutes or every hour, and we can keep on monitoring a component. If there is a failure, we will immediately be notified by email, even on the weekend. We can take action and report the situation to the data analyst and to the component people so that they can immediately work on fixing it.

The API monitoring is one of the most excellent tools we have come across because of the scheduling and the results. We are able to analyze how stable a component is based on that monitoring.

The most valuable features for us are the API monitoring and the Mock Services.

Another good thing is that we can upload JMX files and schedule and monitor performance testing. We are able to share results and see reports that we can't get in JMeter. In that way, the performance testing is good.

In terms of the range of test tools, when there are API calls we can do automation testing, functional testing, performance testing, and use the Mock Services to create a situation that the APIs are down. We are able to handle everything that has to do with APIs. Whatever we have to test—the functionality, the behavior—we are able to do so with the help of BlazeMeter.

One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing.

I don't think they can reduce that time because that's the functionality they have implemented in our BlazeMeter performance testing. But it's a pain point whenever we are running performance testing in a call or a demo, as well as in our live testing when all the business people are there.

The first time I run a given test, if it takes three minutes to download onto my server that's understandable. But every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again, because once the test is completed the files that were downloaded are removed. That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again.

We also had a call last week regarding secret keys. In JMX we have some Backend Listeners, such as Kibana, and there are usernames and passwords for them that we have to manually enter. When we upload the JMX file into BlazeMeter for performance testing, the usernames and passwords are viewable. Anyone who has access to BlazeMeter can download the JMX file and the usernames and passwords are visible to all those people. That's an issue with the performance testing.

Also, all the competitors have MQ protocol support, which is lacking in BlazeMeter's Mock Services. Having MQ protocol support in the Mock Services would be great for us. JDBC, the database communication, is also lacking. If we had those things, we would be completely satisfied with BlazeMeter's Mock Services. 

And for the API monitoring, we are missing a data-driven approach. If, for a single API call, we have 50 to 100 test cases, there should be no need for us to create multiple steps or to duplicate the test steps. Instead, if we had a data-driven approach available, we could directly add the test data into an Excel sheet and call it into the single test steps and achieve what we need to do. We have raised this concern to the Perforce team as well, and they said they are working on it.

I've been using BlazeMeter for two year.

It's stable. Sometimes we do face issues, but they are understandable things.

Every month or two months, something will happen in the back end. The UI will say, for example, that performance testing is down due to this or that reason, and that they are fixing it. Sometimes it affects our testing. We will be in a demo or in a call with our stakeholders where we are presenting and something will be down.

We will raise a support ticket and they will say they are analyzing it and fixing it. They won't take much time, but at that time, it's a pain point. But it happens in all tools. Because it is a cloud tool it's expected, but it's not happening very frequently, so we are happy with it.

We have weekly calls with the BlazeMeter support team, and that's a great thing. During those calls they will ask if there are any issues and whether we need something resolved. If we raise any concerns, they immediately help us during that call. If not, they will ask us to raise a ticket and they follow up on it on both sides—on the support side and with us. They will give us updates. I haven't seen any other companies do that. I have been amazed with the basic support.

We also get weekly updates on whatever the roadmap contains and the new features they are going to be implementing. If we have any doubts we address them in the call. We are using some other tools, but we haven't seen this much support from any other company. When it comes to support, Perforce is the best company I have ever come across.

We haven't had a chance to use the cloud services because of security issues related to our company. We only use the on-prem server. But the cloud services are one of the best things about BlazeMeter when comparing it with its competitors.

We have older tools, like CA DevTest, that we are still using due to dependencies on JMX, MQ, and JDBC steps that are not available with BlazeMeter. With DevTest we are able to handle a lot of the custom extensions. Instead of the Mock Services, we were using the CA DevTest Service Virtualization tool. We want to move completely to BlazeMeter but we can't because of those dependencies.

Ca DevTest is the main competitor, but it doesn't have the performance testing available. Both solutions have pluses and minuses.

DevTest is hard to use. It has too many features for Service Virtualization. If a beginner is trying to learn something in DevTest, it's hard. It might take a month or two months to get some understanding of what the DevTest tool does. BlazeMeter is very simple. Even for beginners, they give some options in the Mock Services. If you're a beginner, you can create a Mock Service and it gives you a description for each and every step. This way, beginners can easily adopt BlazeMeter.

In addition to the step-by-step demos, there is the BlazeMeter University. When we onboard people into BlazeMeter, we ask them to go through those courses. For example, if we are asking them to work on API monitoring, we have them do the course on API monitoring. Once they get the certification, we have them work on the API monitoring. With the BlazeMeter University, there is no need for us to have a separate KB on how it will work or how it will respond. Onboarding people into BlazeMeter is not a problem for us.

We were using the functional testing for APIs, but it has been disabled in our organization. I asked what was the purpose of disabling it and they said it was to make sure that everyone is using the API monitoring. Although we requested that they enable it again for our purposes, so far we haven't had much chance to explore the API functional testing.

Overall, I would rate the solution at seven out of 10 because I have sent some requirements for API monitoring and performance testing on Mock Services separately, to separate teams; things that should be introduced into BlazeMeter. Until those things are available, I am not able to use some of the components 

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.

We have a couple of use cases for BlazeMeter. One is performance testing. It allows us to aggregate the execution and reporting of our performance tests. We can also create automated functional tests relatively quickly compared to writing tests in a coded platform like Java.

Around 20 people in the QA department are using BlazeMeter to test Mendix- based applications. We're doing regression testing on 22 applications, and we have at least two environments that we interact with regularly: a development environment and a pre-production environment.

Before BlazeMeter, we didn't have a performance test aggregator. They were running one-off JMeter tests that weren't stored in a repository. JMeter can generate some reporting, but it's nowhere near as nice as what BlazeMeter provides. And it's more readily understood by the development teams that we work with and the management. That part is great.

We initially purchased the tool for performance testing, but we discovered that we had access to functional testing, so we started using that. That's been great for a lot of the same reasons. It increases visibility and gets everybody on the same page about which tests can run and the status of our regression and functional tests.

BlazeMeter can create test data for performance and functional testing. We don't have much use for that currently, but I could see that being useful for individual functional tests in the future. It's nice to have automatic data generation for test cases.

We haven't used BlazeMeter for shift-left testing. The functional testers embedded with the sprint teams don't do automation. That's all kicked down the road, and the automation is done outside of the sprint. While there is a desire to start attacking things that way, it never really got any traction.

I believe BlazeMeter has also reduced our test times, but I can't quantify that.
It's helped us with our test data challenges. I think they have a lot of great implementation, so I don't want to detract from that, but we have some problems with our applications and some custom things. I think we work on a different platform than many other people do, so it hasn't been as beneficial to us probably as it would be for many other people.

The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update.

The process is pretty straightforward. You can enter data into spreadsheets or use their test data generation feature. You can create thousands of data points if you want. We aren't currently using it to create that much data, but it could easily be used to scale to that. The solution includes a broad range of test tools, including functional tests, performance tests, API testing, etc. They're continuously expanding their features. 

I also like that it's a cloud-based solution, which gives me a single point of execution and reporting. That's great because we can take links to executed test cases and send those to developers. If they have questions, the developers can follow that link to the test and duplicate it or run the test for themselves.

A cloud solution can be a little bit slower than an on-premises client or maintaining test cases locally on our machine. However, we've also run into issues with that. Sometimes people mess up and push the latest changes to the repository. That's not a problem with BlazeMeter because we're doing all the work in the cloud.

Out of all the functional tests, scriptless testing has been the standout piece for my team because it's cloud-based. It's easy for everybody to get into the navigation, and it's pretty intuitive. There's a recorder that's already built into it. It's easy to get started writing test cases with scriptless testing.

BlazeMeter's object repository provides a single point of update for us with regard to locators or selectors for our web elements. It's the same with the action groups. It's incredibly valuable to have reusable action groups that give us a single point for maintenance. It saves a ton of maintenance time.

The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups. 

We've been using BlazeMeter for a little more than a year now.

BlazeMeter is pretty solid. The only complaint is performance. When we get massive tests, we run into some issues.

We've never had issues with scalability. We've got hundreds of tests in BlazeMeter now, and we haven't had a problem aside from some performance problems with reporting. 

I rate BlazeMeter support ten out of ten. The BlazeMeter team has been fantastic. Anytime we need something, they're always on it fast. We have regular meetings with the team where we have an opportunity to raise issues, so they help us find solutions in real-time. That's been great.

Positive

We were previously using Java and Selenium. We implemented BlazeMeter for the performance testing. When we discovered the functional test features, it was easy to pick up and start using. It was an accident that we stumbled into. Our use grew out of an initial curiosity of, "Let's see if we can create this test." And, "Oh, wow. That was really quick and easy." And it grew from there into a bunch more tests.

Our DevOps team did all the setup, so I wasn't involved. We have faced challenges getting our functional test teams to engage with BlazeMeter. They don't have automation experience, so they're hesitant to pick it up and start using it. We've made a couple of attempts to show them how to get started with scriptless, but the incentive has not been good enough. Generally, it's still the regression team that handles the automation with Blazemeter, as well as whatever else we're using.

After deployment, we don't need to do much maintenance. Sometimes, we have to update test cases because they break, but BlazeMeter itself is low-maintenance.

We've seen a return. I don't know exactly how many test cases are in BlazeMeter now, but we've added quite a few functional test cases in there. It's the tool that our performance testing uses right now in conjunction with JMeter.

I can't speak about pricing. My general evaluation isn't from that standpoint. I make the pitch to the leadership, saying, "I think we should get this," and somebody above me makes a decision about whether we can afford it.

We looked at other solutions for performance testing, not functional testing. 
A few points about BlazeMeter stood out. One was BlazeMeter's onboarding team. They seemed more helpful and engaged. We had a better rapport with them initially, and their toolset integrated well with JMeter, the solution we were already using. It's also a much more cost-effective solution than the other options.

I rate BlazeMeter nine out of ten. There's still some room to grow, but it's a pretty solid product. If you're comparing this to other tools and you're thinking about using BlazeMeter for functional testing, take a look at the action groups, object library, and test data generation features. Those three things make your day-to-day work a lot easier. It simplifies creating and maintaining your tests. 

The solution is used as a performance system. 

It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly. The auto-collision feature is also robust. 

The scanning capability needs improvement. 

I have been using BlazeMeter for a year. 

The solution is highly scalable. Five people are using the solution at present. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment takes few minutes time and a couple of people were involved in the process. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I use BlazeMeter for the different samplers it provides.

The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement.

I have been using BlazeMeter for two years. My company is a customer of the solution.

Right now, I don't know about the product's stability. I did not experience any downtime or performance issues with the solution.

For support, I generally use Google or other online sources.

Though I have experience with a solution from OpenText, I feel BlazeMeter is the best. The main reason my company chose BlazeMeter was because it was preferred by one of our clients.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

The product's installation deployment phase

The solution can be deployed in thirty minutes.

The solution did not help save money or time, and neither did it improve security since it was mainly used in our company to deal with the network part.

I have not integrated the tool with any other solutions.

Though it is a good tool, there are certain areas where improvements are required in the product.

Compared to BlazeMeter, multiple options are available in the market for people to choose from to meet their requirements.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

The use cases of BlazeMeter encompass a wide range of scenarios, including loop load testing for API-level, web service, or web application load testing. The primary purpose is to simulate various types of loads. For instance, if the load originates from distributed load testing, opting for a dedicated cloud solution would be advisable. This allows testing applications from diverse geographic locations and handling traffic from different tiers effectively. JAMITA cloud is particularly recommended for this situation, as it efficiently manages infrastructure interfaces and resolves technical intricacies associated with infrastructure maintenance.

It simplifies the process by emphasizing the key aspects of writing, uploading, and running scripts for testing purposes.

The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results.

BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain.

I have used BlazeMeter within the last 12 months.

BlazeMeter is a highly scalable solution. The solution is SaaS and the cloud vendor controls the scalability.

I have not used the support from the vendor.

The initial setup of BlazeMeter is straightforward.

I rate BlazeMeter an eight out of ten.

BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool.

If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market.

I used BlazeMeter within the past 12 months.

BlazeMeter is a stable solution.

We have not done a lot of scalability testing with BlazeMeter to determine the full capabilities of the solution.

Small enterprises would prefer to use BlazeMeter and those companies which have a favorable budget should choose Micro Focus LoadRunner or Tricentis NeoLoad.

There is minimal support available for BlazeMeter. You have to use the internet and try to do some searches to find solutions to your problems.

I have used many similar solutions similar to BlazeMeter, such as JMeter, which I believe BlazeMeter is a customized version of JMeter. It is difficult to compare BlazeMeter to either Micro Focus LoadRunner or Tricentis NeoLoad because it is more of an open-source solution. You do not receive the high level of support that you do with paid solutions. You have to refer to the internet to resolve issues.

The difficulty level for the installation of BlazeMeter depends on how we want to implement it. It's easy to download and install, but some companies restrict the security side of it. The paid solutions are more secure compared to these open-source solutions.

The solution is free and open source.

BlazeMeter should release frequently updated demo versions of the solution to the market. They can let the internet community test it, such as crowdsourced testing, this would be good for them in the market.

I would recommend this solution to others if they have a small budget and do not have the option to buy another solution. Otherwise, Tricentis NeoLoad and Micro Focus LoadRunner are the best.

I rate BlazeMeter a four out of ten.

I mainly use BlazeMeter for scripting. I have a performance testing background, and can directly record my workload with the help of a BlazeMeter plugin. Once I've recorded I can modify a couple of enhancements. I can design my signature in BlazeMeter and choose multiple dedicated IPs, depending on our load. We are system integrators and I'm a senior engineer. 

Providing the Cloud load generator is a good feature. We can run executions from multiple locations. Very few tools provide that. They have recently started with separate API testing. I haven't had a chance to use that yet but it might be very helpful. The solution offers flexibility with its configurations, taking around two to five minutes each. You can see the metrics in a graphical view while running the tests. Response times are also visible and can filter whatever we need and get the results of error loads. 

Documentation for the solution could be improved because there are some areas, such as licensing costs, where there is a lack of information regarding structure. I'd also like the ability to see a comparison feature after carrying out several tests. I'd like to know the difference in terms of response times and other details. That would be a great feature for them to provide. 

Sometimes we'd like to include additional users during a test run to check application sustainability. We can do it from a scripting end but it would be great if BlazeMeter would provide the option of adding a few more users while running a test.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The stability is good. 

The scalability is good. 

If there are issues I update it in a chat and the technical support creates a ticket ID for follow-up. Sometimes they respond very quickly and other times they are very slow at resolving the issue. Response times are inconsistent. 

The initial setup is relatively straightforward and user-friendly. We have less than 50 users, we don't do any load tests.

I recommend BlazeMeter because of the accuracy of the results. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10.