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.

We use the platform for performance and load testing to ensure our applications can handle varying traffic levels.

The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based nature, which allows us to conduct tests without relying on local resources.

Additionally, linking reports with Slack for notifications has greatly benefited our team’s communication.

The product could improve in areas such as mobile testing and the integration of AI analytics.

I have been using BlazeMeter for about two weeks. 

The product is stable. 

Our entire platform is on the Google Cloud Platform (GCP), and BlazeMeter’s ability to handle various load requirements seamlessly has been beneficial.

We have used JMeter and Gatling in the past.

The platform was easy to configure and integrate into our existing pipelines.

We implemented the platform with the help of our in-house DevOps team. 

The product pricing is reasonable. 

I recommend BlazeMeter for its ease of setup and integration into continuous testing pipelines.

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

My organization has BlazeMeter licenses and we do all of our performance integration on BlazeMeter. We're not working on continuous integration. We are mostly working on an agile workflow. We don't have a CI/CD pipeline as of now. 

The largest test I have executed is with 6,000 users. It provides the advantage of using any tool workflow or LoadRunner performance center. It's the enterprise version. If you are using plain packaging meters, not BlazeMeter, you have to grow your instances, either on cloud or on-prem or one of those particular places. You have to do the setup and activities, monitor the activities, and do the housekeeping on the server. 

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 compare something with whatever happened six months or one year back, I can do that. 

We do a lot of extensive testing on multiple products. For example, I'm part of the ServiceNow Platform. We can work with multiple products, multiple features, and multiple add-ons. So we require a lot of extensive testing activity and over the years, it has improved a lot. It has more protocols. It's catering to more technologies now. 

You can create pretty realistic scenarios by bringing multiple scripts into one test. You can make a realistic load.

The reporting and analytics capabilities helped identify performance bottlenecks. It has features where you can integrate JMeter into your plugins, which you can use to integrate with the test and you can do real-time monitoring. We have done that. Right now, within our team, we have a Grafana dashboard, which helps us do real-time monitoring of tests.

The support could be better. It's still not up to the mark. You have to raise tickets and they take too long to respond. In our industry, time is money. I can't wait for them to get back to me with a solution that may not even help me out.

The underlying product is JMeter and JMeter needs to support more protocols, especially now that we come into an AI-heavy reality. If you have scenarios that require testing on AI, there's a limitation. Ultimately, if this doesn't change, people would have to do activities manually.

I've used the solution for five to six years at this point. 

We haven't had a problem with stability. We haven't seen any initial glitches. 

Scaling is not a problem. You can scale up to 10,000 or 15,000 users, and it's not a problem, provided you have the licenses to do so.

Support could be faster. 

Neutral

I have used other solutions. BlazeMeters scores in a lot of areas over others. However, when it comes to performance, there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. BlazeMeter is easier to operate, which is why many organizations use it. That said, tools like LoadRunner and Mule also have their own advantages. 

The solution is easy to work with. Anybody can set it up. There is some maintenance needed since you are creating automation scripts and all automation scripts require some maintenance.

We have witnessed ROI in terms of performance. I have a client that does a lot of business online, and their website is very image-heavy. They made some changes, deployed it, and it crashed twice. The outage was for a little over an hour, which doesn't seem to be much, but when a company operates 24/7, it ends up incurring losses when crashes happen. They also had to compensate for the loss to users based on their agreement structure. If you can reduce the time on issues like that by doing heavy-duty performance testing, you can make a lot of changes and tune things and avoid outages. 

They have very competitive licensing agreements. I'm not sure of the client pricing; however, I'm sure it works out to be pretty cheap.

We're BlazeMeter partners. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I used it for a couple of projects, but I don't actively use it now.

We use it for performance testing, volume testing, stress testing, and endurance testing.

We use it for EPS, web HTTP HTML, SQM, RabbitMQ, and sometimes ActiveMQ. So, it handles various testing scenarios for me. 

It has been most effective in managing large-scale tests. It saves the test execution files to the repository. The tool also has a distributing/executing model. You can create a JMeter script or YAML and then execute it using different infrastructure-related configurations.

Moreover, it can be integrated with tools like ALM.

Running from the cloud with load distribution, it exhibits load from different geo-regions. The best feature is generating loads from different cloud regions.

I find these features useful for my particular use case because I can't execute or generate the load within my infrastructure. With the cloud, I can rent on a pay-per-use model and execute the load with a massive number of users.

Sometimes, when we execute tests, the results calculated by BlazeMeter, specifically the response times for failed transactions, are incorrect. We've already reported this issue. If this could be fixed, BlazeMeter would be a much better tool compared to LoadRunner.

Currently, it incorrectly calculates response times for failed transactions, it provides data that isn't useful. We have to manually aggregate the data to get accurate values.

In future releases, I'd like to see BlazeMeter integrate with mobile applications and allow testing on real devices.

By testing on real devices, we could gather metrics related to CPU usage, memory, and battery consumption. This would give us a better understanding of how the application performs on actual devices and help us ensure there are no battery drain issues, high internet usage, or excessive CPU or memory usage. This would allow us to confidently certify that the application is optimized for real-world device performance.

I work as a centre of excellence, so I've been working with JMeter and BlazeMeter for almost nine to ten years. 

For only BlazeMeter, it would be five to six years. BlazeMeter doesn't have versions, but JMeter is currently on version 5.6.3.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. There haven't been any outages, so I'm satisfied with the stability.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It scales well. When the load generators get overloaded, it automatically distributes the load to new instances.

We don't very actively use it right now, but we have used it in the past two years. If we have the opportunity and the client is looking for a cost-effective tool, we would definitely choose BlazeMeter.

My experience with the customer service and support have been very good. 

Positive

We used LoadRunner. The cost was the main reason for the switch.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, with ten being easy. It was straightforward, I didn't had any issues.

• Deployment Model: It's a SaaS model, so it's already available for use. We only need to create and upload our scripts.
• Integration with existing CI pipelines: Once a new build is ready, we have automated pipelines that trigger a load test on the deployed build. It then provides a result indicating whether it's a go or no-go based on the configured SLAs.

Our organization maintains BlazeMeter, not me. I'm a performance architect who uses BlazeMeter to assess application performance.

The cost is low, so there's a definite return on investment compared to LoadRunner. 

There is no direct ROI because we still pay for the product. But think of it this way: if I spend $100 on LoadRunner but only $10 on BlazeMeter, then the ROI is essentially the $90 saved. That's how we look at it.

I would rate the pricing a three out of ten, where one is very cheap, and ten is very expensive. 

We looked at NeoLoad. Here, also the cost was the primary factor.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. For me, it's a good product. 

It's a good tool for automation testing and performance testing, especially if you're looking for a high-performing, highly scalable, and cost-effective solution.

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.

BlazeMeter is user-friendly and excellent. My company prefers the licensed version of BlazeMeter, which I occasionally use for scripting and designing on the CentOS site, specifically for creating real-world scenarios.

In LoadRunner, we currently cannot create realistic user load behavior as effectively.

I use BlazeMeter occasionally, depending on the project. It's not used for everything but when necessary, especially with JMeter, for specific testing scenarios. So, my use cases depend on and vary according to the project. 

In load testing, BlazeMeter is utilized to create realistic user behavior. It's particularly friendly for web LoadRunner users, providing proper pacing and timing control. 

Moreover, it allows for comprehensive control over user behavior across scripts, such as ramp-up and steady-state phases, which is crucial for conducting incremental load tests and more. This level of control isn't as easily achievable with other tools, but with JMeter and BlazeMeter, it's possible.

Incremental load testing is a type of test you can perform with JMeter. It's a technique that isn't straightforward without BlazeMeter. BlazeMeter facilitates this process.

In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. 

BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally.

This global simulation capability is a significant advantage of holding a cloud license with BlazeMeter.

We also tried the ShiftLeft testing approach with BlazeMeter.

An area for improvement could be enhancing BlazeMeter's integration with automation scripts. 

It would be beneficial if BlazeMeter could support automation frameworks more effectively, including the use of Selenium scripts for both manual and automated load testing.

Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options. A lot of products are coming out, and BlazeMeter pricing is a factor. 

For example, LoadStorm by Neustar is integrated with built-in APMs. It won't capture all server stats, but it will collect the minimum important aspects – CPU consumption, utilization rate, and how much a single server is being stressed. If BlazeMeter offered similar functionality, it would be fantastic.

I started using it almost four years ago and continue to use it as needed.

I would rate the stability a six out of ten. It's good. But one suggestion – people tend to rate based on cost these days. Because of that pricing, there are a lot of other new technologies on the market. That's why some people integrate BlazeMeter with an Application Performance Monitor (APM) tool, like Elastic Search or Elastic module. You can pull anything, even CPU utilization or memory usage, by installing agents.

It's actually really good.  

BlazeMeter is a scalable product. It's user-friendly and easy to operate, which I find appealing.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

I used Micro Focus LoadRunner. I transitioned from my previous company to a different company. In my previous company, they used LoadRunner for customer projects, with a license for around 500 users.

I've faced a lot of issues with LoadRunner. Even with proper Java configuration, it throws exceptions when I run the first couple of servers. Because of that, I had to use a different VM and install everything from scratch. After that, things worked smoothly with BlazeMeter.

Additionally, I utilize JMeter for several products and Webber out of curiosity.

The setup process for BlazeMeter is simple.

The pricing is manageable. It is not that big. Big companies won't mind the licensing costs. However, Neustar has more reasonable pricing. 

Most people don't prefer Neustar, but it is a good solution. 

I specialize in load testing, so I use both LoadRunner and BlazeMeter in parallel. 

I've previously worked with other tools like Neustar, where we were able to simulate load similarly. A noteworthy aspect of these tools is the ability to integrate automation scripts for load testing, which enhances their utility.

Neustar is actually replacing LoadRunner in our current environment. If we want to do both automation and load testing, I would choose Nustar. We can create Selenium scripts directly in Neustar, and automation engineers can use Selenium to create scripts that can then be called within Neustar.

BlazeMeter meets our needs well. It performs admirably for our purposes.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I would recommend using this solution to other users.