BlazeMeter

I have started to work with Apache JMeter  and BlazeMeter  for performance testing. BlazeMeter  has provided me with a vast platform for running performance tests via the cloud, allowing me to upload JMeter  script files and execute performance tests based on my requirements.

BlazeMeter has provided me with a vast cloud platform to run JMeter script files, eliminating the need for storage or load providers. BlazeMeter integrates with JMeter via multiple plugins, which streamlines performance testing, test monitoring, and report sharing. It also generates random test data, such as credit card numbers, on the fly. This setup saves me time and effort.

BlazeMeter could improve by consolidating features into existing plugins instead of developing separate plugins for similar tasks. For instance, the extra CSV random dataset plugin could be integrated with a simple checkbox in the existing CSV dataset plugin to read files randomly. Such integration would simplify the processes.

I have worked with BlazeMeter on and off for the past four to five years, but I have been using it continuously for the past two months.

I would rate the stability of BlazeMeter as eight out of ten, indicating that it is a stable and reliable solution.

BlazeMeter is quite scalable, and I rate its scalability as nine out of ten.

The customer service is not available 24/7, which affects its rating. I would rate it as a seven because they respond once they are available.

Neutral

Before BlazeMeter, I was doing distributed load testing locally on my machine, which constrained my resources. BlazeMeter allowed me to handle loads beyond my local machine's capabilities.

The initial setup was straightforward, with BlazeMeter operational within minutes upon uploading the necessary files.

BlazeMeter's pricing depends on the type of account used. They offer multiple account types, with cost variations based on features accessible under each account.

I did not evaluate other products as I have already used BlazeMeter for multiple projects.

Based on my experience, I recommend BlazeMeter to others. Overall, I rate the solution as eight out of ten.

I primarily use BlazeMeter for performance testing. I utilize the BlazeMeter plugin for recording, but not extensively for testing itself. 

I have recommended it to clients and used it once for a specific requirement when I needed to simulate higher loads.

One key advantage of using BlazeMeter is that it does not require me to manage my own infrastructure. It provides the ability to use hosts which are pre-deployed globally. Since BlazeMeter offers a higher limit on load simulation compared to standalone JMeter, it is beneficial for large-scale performance testing without infrastructure overhead. Moreover, some features like reporting are available out of the box in BlazeMeter.

BlazeMeter should improve or make available some features out of the box that JMeter requires customization for. The licensing cost is also a concern since BlazeMeter is not free like JMeter, which limits its use. 

Additionally, if there is no host in preferred locations such as some Asian or Middle Eastern countries, it might not be convenient to use BlazeMeter.

I used BlazeMeter for about a week for a specific requirement that involved a higher load.

BlazeMeter provides stability by removing the need to manage infrastructure, offering cloud-based operations instead.

BlazeMeter allows me to select hosts globally depending on the workload and has the capability to simulate a higher number of users compared to JMeter standalone.

I did not need to contact BlazeMeter's customer service as my usage was quite specific and clear, along with prior experience with JMeter.

Neutral

I have previously used JMeter extensively, and BlazeMeter was used once I addressed all the issues in JMeter and required higher load capabilities.

The initial setup with BlazeMeter is straightforward. The main challenge in performance testing lies more in script creation than in setup or execution.

I did not engage any external implementation team for BlazeMeter.

BlazeMeter requires licensing, which means it is not free like JMeter, adding to the setup cost considerations.

I have worked with other tools like LoadRunner and NeoLoad for performance testing.

If BlazeMeter offered a free version with limitations similar to JMeter, I would find it beneficial to avoid infrastructure concerns. 

I rate BlazeMeter at eight out of ten, due to not having used the most recent version.

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. 

We deliver it to the clients about the reports etc.

We have clients for whom we are upgrading their applications from old versions to new ones. Initially, we conduct assessments to compare the performance of the old applications with the new ones. For example, we might upgrade an application from a desktop environment to a web application. After the upgrade, we demonstrate how the new application handles load across the front end, API, and database. For this purpose, we use performance testing tools to showcase the improvements.

It is focused on concurrency testing, which has been especially beneficial for us. Their previous experiences had caused major setbacks. 

The pricing is high because the advanced version comes with different features. Unlike JMeter, which offers a free version, BlazeMeter requires you to upgrade to a higher tier to access those advanced features.

BlazeMeter comes with a cost, so our client must agree. We've settled for the basic plan, which limited our ability to explore the higher versions. This is one drawback, especially since JMeter already provides many features that are out of the box. However, a positive aspect of BlazeMeter is that it offers various options for capturing different formats, such as JSON, XML, etc.

I have been using BlazeMeter for seven months.

It is stable. It depends on the client's requirements. There's no hard-n-fast rule. We have multiple clients, and when they request it, we perform the testing for them. It's done once a week or once a month, depending on the needs. Unlike KN automation, it's not a regular process. We conduct performance testing primarily for assessment purposes and system improvements based on client requirements.

It is scalable but distributed, and everything comes with a price. We haven't explored much but expect to explore in the future.

We are around five to six people using BlazeMeter in our organization.

We are experiencing some delays with BlazeMeter, as running or executing tests takes a bit of time. For example, running a test with a hundred clicks for a conference user takes approximately twenty minutes. This is one of the issues we're facing. We're exporting from BlazeMeter and importing the test into JMeter for the KN to address this. 

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

We switched to BlazeMeter because of issues related to proxy handling in JMeter. BlazeMeter is more reliable in managing proxy errors, which was a significant reason for our transition. It also supports custom configurations, allowing you to define your own ports, etc. Additionally, BlazeMeter provides multiple options for recording and storing test scripts, which can be easily converted to UI or GUI formats. These features were the primary reasons for our switch to BlazeMeter.

The initial setup is not difficult. There is ready documentation and some videos to guide you.

It is a bit pricey, especially if you're primarily interested in its recording and script conversion features. However, you'll need to opt for the higher-priced plans to access advanced features like scalability and distribution, as these features aren't included in the basic version. Additionally, the resources available in the basic plan are limited compared to the higher tiers.

Report-wise, everything is good. However, the execution time is slightly higher compared to other tools.  Everything is consistent regarding recording, and I haven't encountered any bugs. However, the execution time is inconsistent. Sometimes, when I run the same script at different times, it takes longer to execute.

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

The solution’s most valuable feature is the dashboard.

BlazeMeter does not provide integration with the Aternity tool. The solution has the capability to work with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, and New Relic. However, it does not have the option to integrate with Aternity.

I have been using BlazeMeter for the last one and a half years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Around 800 users use the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup is straightforward and not time-consuming. It's easy to upload all scripts and everything we do on-premises to BlazeMeter. It is also easy to prepare whatever scenario we need.

We pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution.

Around 1,500 technical staff are needed for the solution’s deployment and maintenance. We mainly use BlazeMeter for performance testing and to generate the load from multiple locations. The automation and manual testing teams can also use the same tool for their automation testing or manual testing. So, BlazeMeter could be a single platform for multiple teams.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.