No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Actional vs Apica comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 24, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Actional
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
73rd
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
SOA Governance (3rd)
Apica
Ranking in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
53rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (46th), IT Operations Analytics (14th), Observability Pipeline Software (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability category, the mindshare of Actional is 0.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Apica is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Apica0.7%
Actional0.6%
Other98.7%
Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability
 

Featured Reviews

it_user690762 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a comms service provider with 501-1,000 employees
Provides speed and scaling in the cloud
Provides speed and scaling in the cloud Effortless scaling Never throws away data Takes action now Delivers analytics at the speed of business Automates and speeds up system discovery I would like to see better marketing. We have used this for four years. There are no deployment issues at this…
PA
Test Automation Specialist -Full Stack at IBM
Recording flows and script enhancements streamline performance testing, but script access limitations and outdated language hinder some functions
Apica allows me to record APIs easily and enhances scripts through options like auto-correlation, enabling me to access dynamic fields. The tool has a test analyzer for clear reporting and downloading PDF reports. It is useful for both performance and automation testing, facilitating access to headers and payloads easily, enhancing scripts with dynamic values.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"This tool has great scaling capabilities, i.e., no limitations."
"From a testing standpoint, ignoring license and cost issues, it's not a bad product."
"The solution captures all our requests and responses."
"With the ZebraTester, the ability to have and store dynamic variables, when setting up the monitors, means you can extract that value and use it in a subsequent service call. This is something that has made our lives easier... This is one of the features that I like the most because it helps us in configuring these services, in a certain flow, without the need to re-record the whole thing."
"I like the transcript download feature. And with UI scripting, it's helpful that Apica handles a lot of the backend work automatically. I don't have to tag everything manually, though I can tag elements later if needed. It's really good at recording the steps."
"There are several features that are really good. The first one is the flexibility and the advanced configuration that Apica offers when it comes to configuring synthetic checks. It provides the ability to customize how the check should be performed and it is very flexible in the number of synthetic locations that it can use. It allows us to run scripts from different locations all over the world, and they have a really good number of these locations."
"The GUI is powerful and doesn't require scripting or regular expressions. It has a vast finder for correlation, which is easier than other tools like JMeter and LoadRunner. It's also easy to integrate with other tools with a separate execution environment. The tool is also easy to use."
"It helps with releases because we monitor them in staging. We can tell if something is critically wrong before it gets into production, e.g., if it was load related or function related and also what was different in the dev stage. It then alerts us straightaway inside of our production monitors once it has been released. Therefore, it has improved how we run our systems since we monitor multiple environments."
"It is easy for beginners to learn and use Apica."
"Anyone can understand the solution easily because it doesn't require a specific scripted language."
 

Cons

"My concern is with Automation integration."
"Alerting needs improvement. It's a little noisy. It needs some better options. Currently, they have an issue, when you set up a synthetic monitor, you can set up where it's monitoring from, a data center that Apica owns."
"The initial screen on their dashboard could have a bit more data, but this is a small thing. It could have more data, so we do not need to drill down to a screen behind that initial information. I would like them to get a little better on the user interfaces that we need to go into."
"Apica should add more features and integrations with different tools and certain ticketing systems, like ServiceNow."
"Check frequency has been a scalability challenge for them."
"Alerting needs improvement. It's a little noisy."
"When it comes to the way the internal agent is installed, because you can install an application on a server, I would love to see the application Docker-ized. If you could install internal agents using Docker or using containers, it would be easier for us to manage them and spin up internal agents."
"The accuracy of alerts can be improved a little bit; what we have seen happen is the number of alerts that we are getting is very frequent, and we would like to tone down the number of alerts."
"Learning the tool has always been a little difficult from a scripting perspective because the framework is proprietary and unique. Once we became used to what it does and how to perform it, then it became easier for my team and me. I would like to see some of the testing steps be part of a more well-known language, like Java or Python. That would be a big improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The product is less expensive compared to LoadRunner."
"The tool is completely free and open source. I've been using it for about two and a half years and installed it on both my personal and client machines without needing a license. All features are available for use without any hidden fees."
"The pricing and licensing are very reasonable. At the end of the day, you are using their technology/software and getting X amount of checks for a very decent value. As for discounts, they try to meet your budgets as much as they can. For example, if you need 100 checks and you have X amount of budget for it, then they will try and get down to that price. Costing-wise, it is a reasonably cost product. They will always try and come down to your price if you need them to come down to it by knocking off certain areas."
"The level of alerting accuracy has saved us time and money in operational costs. Overall, it has automated a lot of the manual efforts which have been more complex with some of our other scripting tools or monitors. So, it brings things together by doing things faster and saves us money."
"Apica is pretty cost-effective if you buy both solutions together: Synthetic and LoadTest. If you are going for one solution, the cost is on par with any tool in the market."
"License management is another area that Apica could do better. We have already had these conversations with our account teams. This is something that they are looking at largely improving in upcoming releases. I believe that this is already on their roadmap."
"The pricing is fair. It is neither too cheap nor too expensive."
"I am sure that Apica's price will be lower than LoadRunner."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Comms Service Provider
15%
Construction Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise17
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Apica Synthetic?
Apica cannot perform endurance or scale-up tests independently. It requires other tools like ALM. When editing scripts, only one can be accessed at a time, risking changes affecting other folders. ...
What is your primary use case for Apica Synthetic?
I use Apica for performance testing, where I record our flows, enhance our scripts, and add inline code and correlation IDs. This provides dynamic values for execution. I use Apica for automation t...
What advice do you have for others considering Apica Synthetic?
I find Apica challenging to learn initially due to the lack of online training resources besides documentation. It's essential for someone knowledgeable to provide KT sessions. Overall, I rate Apic...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Apica LoadTest, Apica Synthetic
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Proximus, Air France-KLM, Barratt Developments, Freedom Mortgage
HBO, JPMC, Morgan Stanley, Xander, EA Sports, Volvo
Find out what your peers are saying about Actional vs. Apica and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.