We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Cavisson NetStorm based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We are using it just for load testing. We are using its free version, and it is scalable."
"It's easy to set up."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"The solution's initial setup is easy."
"The metrics part of it and the ability to write your custom code to do some specific tests in the performance testing space are the most valuable features."
"The ease of use is the solution's most valuable feature. Also, the ability to easily create test cases is also very good. It's easy to just ramp up on the solution."
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"The solution offers a lot of plug-ins and a huge continuously developing community that is regularly offering new features and plug-ins."
"NetStorm can generate high load with a single machine. Its Runlogic feature is very useful to send load to cover each and every flow of the application. NetStorm gives the feasibility of generating load with multiple load arrival models helping components to be tested based on its usage."
"Designs dynamic scripts and scenarios, as per our requirements, which is one the most important feature available in NetStorm. It helps us to do performance testing of our application in a periodic way."
"This tool helps to focus on real-time transactions that occur at a very high rate."
"We would like more documentation to be provided for the advanced level features that are available in this solution, in order to improve development."
"It should be easier to combine multiple scripts. If you have multiple scripts, you need to write a new script to combine those scripts. The virtual user generator is slow."
"If the solution was GUI based, I believe that it would be more versatile."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"I need to consider it further because as features increase, it might become more complicated, and my goal has always been simplicity. Currently, I have to focus on other tasks, and I'm handling multiple responsibilities, so I can't juggle everything at once. However, if you ask me, I believe EJB covers most functionalities that are crucial. One improvement I'd suggest is adding a graphical aspect to the Gateway, making it a bit more colorful. Unlike JMeter, which lacks color, having a bit of color in the graphical aspects would be beneficial. Overall, for the essential features, EJB should work fine."
"The UI has room for improvement."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"There could be improvements in terms of memory utilization. We are going to migrate away from JMeter in the near future."
"In the next release, we are looking for a JS instrumentation feature that would be helpful in identifying client-side issues at an early stage, or during testing."
"The user interface had to be improved for the product. Its user interface should be made simple and easy to customize as per user needs."
"Need to add or support some more APIs in the Script Manager window."
Earn 20 points
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Cavisson NetStorm is ranked 19th in Load Testing Tools. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Cavisson NetStorm is rated 9.4. 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 Cavisson NetStorm writes "Has monitoring capabilities integrated into it to see the performance of components while the test is in the running phase". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas Cavisson NetStorm is most compared with . See our Apache JMeter vs. Cavisson NetStorm report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.