We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and SmartBear LoadNinja based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature in JMeter is the Thread Group, which helps us to see whether the performance is good."
"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."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"We use Apache JMeter for load testing, where we provide the throughput time."
"What I like best about Apache JMeter is its user-friendly GUI because even if you don't have very good coding knowledge or understanding, or even if you don't come from a development background, you can still use the solution with just a few clicks. This is what's unique about Apache JMeter, in comparison with other tools in the market. As Apache JMeter is open source, when there's a missing feature, you can search in several community blogs for plugins that you can use to modify Apache JMeter to meet your requirements, and this is another advantage."
"To me, what's most valuable in Apache JMeter is that it's a lightweight tool for application testing. It's the best load-testing tool for my company because Apache JMeter simulates your application during testing. Apache JMeter also creates threads with good server utilization. Apache JMeter allows you to focus on analyzing the situation, looking into measurements, response time, and client-server responses, which I find valuable."
"It's easy to set up."
"The most valuable feature of Apache JMeter is its popularity. It is the best open-source tool with all the features needed."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
"Considering the kinds of tests we are performing here, where we launch several tests at the same time as a batch request, JMeter is not the best tool for the job. Those kinds of things could be done easily with other tools, like T6."
"It should start supporting the presentation layer. It currently provides performance testing specifically at the application and API level. It can be extended to the presentation layer, which includes mainly Angular and React frameworks. It should also be easy to use and easy to train people."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"The memory utilization in JMeter is very poor."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"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."
"Because so much is being done these days with authentication processes, a better system for either getting bearer tokens or some kind of token-based authentication prior to executing APIs would benefit the product. It is there, and you can do things. It is just not real clean at this point. There should be a better authentication process for JMeter or some automation or better guidelines for gaining and utilizing tokens on the fly."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
"On a smaller scale, there will be no budget issues, but as we expand to a larger user base, I believe we will face some pricing challenges."
"It needs time to mature."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while SmartBear LoadNinja is ranked 14th in Performance Testing Tools with 3 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while SmartBear LoadNinja is rated 7.4. 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 SmartBear LoadNinja writes "Easy to use with good documentation and helpful support". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca, whereas SmartBear LoadNinja is most compared with ReadyAPI Performance, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad and Selenium HQ. See our Apache JMeter vs. SmartBear LoadNinja 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.