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

BlazeMeter vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 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

BlazeMeter
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (5th), Load Testing Tools (4th), API Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (9th)
CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
27th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BlazeMeter is 2.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
BlazeMeter2.0%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other96.6%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Nirav Patel - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior QA Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Performance testing for peak retail events has become faster and delivers reliable user load insights
BlazeMeter offers numerous features, but the ones that stand out to me include its ease of use, predefined configurations for high-scale performance testing that can be executed quickly, AI-powered testing, scriptless testing, and accurate API testing with an auto-correction plugin to ensure the accuracy of the tests performed. While I cannot pinpoint a single favorite feature, I find myself using parallel execution frequently because this feature allows multiple tests to be run at once, greatly enhancing my workflow. BlazeMeter effectively handles dependency in microservice architecture, for example, linking one API to another to manage response flows, such as the login and registration APIs, which flows efficiently through BlazeMeter. BlazeMeter has positively impacted my organization by reducing the time required for testing due to its robust features that yield efficient results. Unlike JMeter, which has limitations on user simulations, BlazeMeter allows me to test any number of users, helping my e-commerce website manage unpredictable traffic loads effectively while delivering accurate results I can trust to improve my systems.
CN
Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"I also evaluated JMeter and LoadRunner but I prefer BlazeMeter because of the speed and because it's easier to use."
"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."
"The testing it offers is very useful and compatible with many platforms."
"There is a repository of all the scripts that we have created. You can go back and compare tests to see what the tests looked like. If I want to go and compare something with whatever happened six months or one year back, I can do that."
"BlazeMeter has allowed my organization to identify bottlenecks in our infrastructure and better prepare for large amounts of traffic."
"Setup was straightforward and simple."
"The technical support is good."
"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"Overall, the product does what we need and does it well."
 

Cons

"Reporting."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"At the moment, it's heavily based on putting a load on systems through API endpoints/HTTP endpoints."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive."
"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."
"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."
"The licensing fees are billed on a monthly basis and they cost approximately $100 for the basic plan."
"The product pricing is reasonable."
"My company has opted for a pay-as-you-go model, so we don't make use of the free version of the product."
"We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution."
"It's consumption-based pricing but with a ceiling. They're called CVUs, or consumption variable units. We can use API testing, GUI testing, and test data, but everything gets converted into CVUs, so we are free to use the platform in its entirety without getting bogged down by a license for certain testing areas. We know for sure how much we are going to spend."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Construction Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Transportation Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise23
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

How does BlazeMeter compare with Apache JMeter?
Blazemeter is a continuous testing platform that provides scriptless test automation. It unifies functional and performance testing, enabling users to monitor and test public and private APIs. We ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BlazeMeter?
Regarding pricing, it is favorable compared to other tools, providing good value. The licensing is flexible, with options for one or two-year terms based on user requirements, and BlazeMeter occasi...
What needs improvement with BlazeMeter?
BlazeMeter meets my needs very well, but an area for improvement would be the ability to execute multiple projects simultaneously. I often have several projects that require performance testing, an...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

JMeter Cloud
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

DIRECTV, GAP, MIT, NBCUniversal, Pfizer, StubHub
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Find out what your peers are saying about BlazeMeter vs. CrossBrowserTesting and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.