We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and BlazeMeter based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Since JMeter has limited scalability, BlazeMeter is the clear winner in this comparison.
"We use Apache JMeter for load testing, where we provide the throughput time."
"JMeter is basically the art of the entire performance testing process."
"It is open source as well as relatively extendable. It allows us to extend and add additional functionality and features. Its deployment is also very easy."
"It's very easy to install, and it's very easy to code and develop the script."
"The distributed load testing is very good with Apache JMeter."
"JMeter is user-friendly, and that's a notable advantage of JVTech. It's straightforward and easy to use, unlike some other load testing tools, making it very easy to understand."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is being able to launch many requests and scheduling simulating human interactions with the application."
"It's easy to set up."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"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."
"Until now, JMeter is not supporting most of the protocols."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"They should improve the solution on its UI front."
"There is some work to be done with the integration."
"There could be improvements in terms of memory utilization. We are going to migrate away from JMeter in the near future."
"The only thing is the learning curve. It's high."
"If JMeter could integrate with the EPM solution, it would be great. It could also be improved by offering more integrations for security. For example, most applications are secure with OpenID Connect protocols."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while BlazeMeter is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and ReadyAPI, whereas BlazeMeter is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BrowserStack and Perfecto. See our Apache JMeter vs. BlazeMeter report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.