BlazeMeter Reviews

I like the BlazeMeter extension. It is a very good expansion. With it, you can record any type of performance script scenario, and you can generate in a JMeter script, Selenium, et cetera. That is a very good feature. 

If you want to do that, it is used mostly on performance testing, API Mocking, et cetera. The API Mocking capabilities are great.

For performance, it is a very good tool and we don't have too much to do. 

It is UI-based and you can select the load generator and it is auto-scalable. You can select the origin where we want to generate load from it. We can select the bandwidth, for example. 

It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials.

The solution is stable.

I cannot recall coming across any missing features.

The reporting capabilities could be improved.

It would be ideal if it could incorporate tools such as APM or Dynatrace.

I've been using the solution for six years. It's been a while. 

We have found the solution to be stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

For the paid version, we have our own technical support for BlazeMeter. They are helpful.

The cost is a bit high for the Indian consumer. For a European or American user, the solution may not seem that expensive.

We are just customers and end-users.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities in general.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

Our primary use case is to create processes for performance. I created a one time function and implemented it for 1,000 users. 

I really like the recording because, with JMeter, the recording takes me a lot of time to get used to. With, BlazeMeter the recording is quick.

In terms of improvement, I would like it to have the ability to customize reports. 

We have been using BlazeMeter for around two months. 

It is stable. 

I implemented it for 1,000 users. 

The initial setup was straightforward. I deployed it myself. Because I'm new to BlazeMeter it took two days to deploy because I needed to study it first also.

I deployed and also maintain it myself. 

I also evaluated JMeter and LoadRunner but I prefer BlazeMeter because of the speed and because it's easier to use. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. I would recommend it. 

I would like for it to be Windo-based. It should have the ability to be implemented into Windows applications. 

We use BlazeMeter to perform load testing on our different web portals. Starting from JMeter scripts and based on users' behavior, we use the BlazeMeter workspace to adjust ramp-up. We study contemporary users and different scenarios in order to meet business expectations in terms of the required SLA.

BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process. Before BlazeMeter, we used to set up an ad-hoc infrastructure with no formal structure in terms of the scope, or how and when to provision it. This meant additional costs in terms of resources and time for managing the load-test infrastructure.

The reuse of JMeter scripts has allowed us to have continuity with the past, meaning that we didn't need to change the way we write scripts and collaborate with business users. Furthermore, it has given us a common way to modelize our campaigns with different technical partners, or different development teams.

A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools. Different plugins for the most common APM tools could help to reconcile traffic charges with application behavior. For example, a root cause analysis of bottlenecks or analysis of non-linear behavior in applications.

We use BlazeMeter to run simple POST requests against our application to simulate heavy load. We can then monitor our application instances as well as our database to see where the bottlenecks are.

It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time. This ensures that we are ready for real customer load.

The most valuable feature is simply the ability to have a basic POST request while simulating many users at one time. Being able to determine either a number of iterations or having all users hit the application for a duration, are both useful options.

My only complaint is about the technical support, see further details below regarding customer support.

It would improve the product if their Chrome extension allowed you to modify the JMeter settings.

So far I haven't encountered any issues so it seems very stable to me.

We have only used basic, but for one thousand users, it works great.

Their support is pretty good and normally gets back to me within one day. One time, instead of the support rep taking the time to understand the details of my inquiry and source of my confusion, they pointed me to documentation to assist me in finding the answer on my own.  On the documentation page, I had to go into a few links in order to find the answer. The rep could have easily said "here is the documentation where we have the information, and you'll need to go here and do this to fix your problem."

I appreciate when support makes it feel like they understand your exact issue and then tell you exactly how to fix it. I also prefer when support gives you exactly what you need as they know the product best.

BlazeMeter was the first tool that I used.

I found the initial setup to be pretty simple. I'm using JMeter, so I had to do a bit of research myself on how to change some of the JMeter settings that their Chrome add-on does not allow you to modify.

This solution was recommended by a colleague, and I did not evaluate other options.

To load performance testing of web/mobile apps.

WIP.

• Simplicity
• Easy integration of open source tools
• Moderate migration of ALM scripts.

Reporting.

We have an AWS elastic beanstalk Node.js express backend with Mongodb that we expect to experience a significant amount of load in the coming weeks. 

BlazeMeter has allowed my organization to identify bottlenecks in our infrastructure and better prepare for large amounts of traffic.

The test scenario definition feature is extremely easy to use and makes configuring tests an extremely fast process. I have found this feature to be the most valuable.

More runs per month for the basic plan would be useful. Also, being able to stream logs from AWS and integrate them with the test reports would be excellent.

This solution seems very stable.

The product seems extremely scalable. 

Great and responsive!

No, this was the first solution.

It was extremely easy to get set up.

In-house team with a lot of expertise.

Cost is a little high but is reasonable for a startup at our scale. For personal use I believe the pricing for the paid plans is a bit out of reach.

BlazeMeter was the clear choice for our infrastructure.

Excellent product!

• The ability to quickly scale out a load test across the world, just to simulate realistic world traffic conditions.

For us in particular, we're a product that gets heavily used during the election season. We've always had trouble handling this burst in the past, so this past year, I've started using BlazeMeter at this company. We took from January to July using BlazeMeter to really model out what the traffic looked like in previous years and to be able to handle the load when November came and it went through just fine without a glitch.

At the moment, it's heavily based on putting a load on systems through API endpoints/HTTP endpoints. There is a lot of existing tooling out there in organizations that deal with a Selenium-based test and they only have a Selenium web driver option right now, which is not the nicest thing to use. Organizations currently have Selenium tests written and, like us for example, a huge suite in Java. It would be nice to be able to just throw them in there.

I’ve been using BlazeMeter for about four years.

This is a cloud-based solution. I've never really had any trouble with it.

We have not had scalability issues for our needs. We're talking about scaling stuff out to hundreds of thousands of requests per second and those in turn generate a lot more traffic internally. So with whatever we use, it's perfectly fine.

We did not use technical support.

We didn't have a previous solution. I personally came to this company in the past year and a half. I've always used BlazeMeter at my other companies and there was a big, gaping hole here. They were doing everything manually with running JMeter tests and this was just a natural fit.

For this audience, if you know JMeter, everything is pretty straightforward. You just sign up and upload your test. As far as support goes, if you do run into stuff, they have a little button on the side that lets you chat with them.

This is all in-house.

That's tough to calculate, but I can tell you that BlazeMeter helped increase quality-of-service (QoS) which in turn leads to customers having a positive experience with the product. That, of course, leads to less churn which is a good thing.

The pricing works. They're flexible. They work with you.

There was LoadStorm, loader.io, and blitz.io.

Definitely ask your engineering staff if they're familiar with JMeter. If they're not, it would be good to get a quick two-hour tutorial on it and then BlazeMeter will make a lot more sense.

We were doing load testing. We were testing web servers, and we needed to confirm that our servers were performing as well as the old ones.

One example of what happened is that we noticed that there was a significant difference between our two sites. It turned out that there was a configuration on the network side so after we fixed that, the performance was much better.

It helped to identify where there were problems, and then we could go investigate and figure out what was going on. We didn't just do one test, but this was a one-time sanity check on the new environment. One time lasted three months, but during that time, I would say we did it once a week.

There was one feature that I wanted that they didn't have. The feature was starting two tests simultaneously, but keeping the data separate, and showing separate graphs from two different test instances on the same display.

What happened is that I was trying to run two tests at the same time so I would have to do one in one window, one in the other window, and there was a few seconds difference, which was okay. Then, I would have to take the tests in one browser, and compare them to the tests in another browser.

If they could combine functionality and put them side by side with the same scale for me, that would've been ideal. I was using one standard testing configuration.

We used it, I would say, for three months, to do performance testing on a very specific application.

We did not encounter any stability issues.

We didn't have any scalability issues. I can't remember how many users we had. We weren't doing incredible load testing. We were just using heavy load testing. There were no issues on the BlazeMeter side.

I would rate the technical support as 9/10, as I used it quite a few times. There was one instance where there was a timing mixup with a support engineer, which I was disappointed about, but the service was totally great. I would call them up with a question, they would answer it. It was fine.

I did not use any solution previously. I chose them because somebody else in my company had used them before, and had told me that they were very good.

The setup was straightforward. We had a very simple setup. We had a very simple testing scenario. After I watched the one-hour video, how the thing works, and then it showed up your URLs to test, I entered that, and there were two options we had to choose. Technically, it was very straightforward just for pure load testing.

The pricing was straightforward. That was no issue. To have the features, the special features that I wanted, realistically it could've been cheaper, but you get what you pay for. It was fair pricing, it was just a lot for our purchasing pipeline.

I did a small evaluation, not very intensive. I would say a very small evaluation. Nothing significant.

I would say use it, but people also have to know that they have to do their own due diligence and they have to make sure that their servers are okay. My advice would be to gather statistics on the servers as the tests are running, so that if the test indicates that there's something wrong, you can quickly look to the CPU, to the memory, to get an idea if it looks like it's an internal issue, or if it looks like it's an external issue.