We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and k6 Open Source based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Load Testing Tools."JMeter lets us generate virtual users and T-load, per our requirements. It's easy to configure and adjusting the virtual users according to the DPS we want to achieve."
"JMeter's most valuable feature is the RegEx Extractor."
"We really appreciate that the solution comes with a live community, which continuously provided plugins and support protocols."
"We find the ease of use and the reports and graphs available valuable."
"The most valuable features are the ability to capture the entire traffic of particular pages and the proper readability of entire pages and entire APIs."
"The product helps me get the expected performance from applications or servers and reduces costs. It also enhances the performance of the services and helped them reach their ultimate capacity."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"It's very easy to install, and it's very easy to code and develop the script."
"The standout feature of k6 is its strong focus on API performance testing."
"The tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process."
"If JMeter could provide a web version of editing, that would be good."
"We're like the solution to be more user-friendly."
"Apache should have a graphic interface."
"Running JMeter in GUI mode uses a lot of memory, which means we need to switch to a non-GUI mode when using a heavy load."
"Its reporting could be improved. There should be a better visual representation. That would be helpful for easy consumption of the reports."
"What needs improvement in Apache JMeter is the very high load requirements when you want to scale it beyond certain thresholds. For example, small to mid-range testing is very easily done with Apache JMeter, but if you scale and increase the load, then it would be a problem because the tool consumes a lot of resources, probably because Apache JMeter provides an enriched UI experience, so it consumes a lot of memory and requires high CPU usage. This means you have to manage your infrastructure, or else you'll have high overhead expenses. As Apache JMeter is a heavyweight tool, that is an area for improvement, though I'm unsure if Apache can do something about it because it could be a result of the way it's architected. What I'd like to see from Apache JMeter in the future is for it to transition to the cloud, as a lot of cloud technologies emerge around the globe, and a lot of people prefer cloud-based solutions or cloud-native tools. Even if a company has a legacy system, it's still possible to transition to the cloud. I've worked with a company that was an on-premise company that moved to the cloud and became cloud-native. If Apache JMeter could transition to the cloud, similar to k6, then it could help lessen the intense resource consumption that's currently happening in Apache JMeter."
"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 tool needs to have a better Graphical User Interface. Many of the solution's features are difficult to understand due to the complex user interface and user experience. The product needs to add plugins. It should also work on the integration with external partners like IDE and API gateways."
"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 82 reviews while k6 Open Source is ranked 17th in Load Testing Tools with 2 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while k6 Open Source is rated 7.6. 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 k6 Open Source writes "Offers good scalability and has the ability to integrate with various systems and services". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Akamai CloudTest, whereas k6 Open Source is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, BlazeMeter and RadView WebLOAD.
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.
