We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and ReadyAPI 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."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 most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"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."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"The performance testing capabilities are very good."
"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"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."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"The UI is not user-friendly."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
"ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. 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 ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and SmartBear LoadNinja, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and Appvance IQ. See our BlazeMeter vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Functional 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.
