We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and RadView WebLOAD 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."BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"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."
"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."
"Version controlling of the test cases and the information, the ability to compare the current version and the previous version within Runscope would be really nice. The history shows who made the changes, but it doesn't compare the changes."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while RadView WebLOAD is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RadView WebLOAD writes "IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and k6 Open Source, whereas RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, Apache JMeter, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and k6 Open Source. See our BlazeMeter vs. RadView WebLOAD 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.