We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter 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."We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"We find the ease of use and the reports and graphs available valuable."
"The solution helps by detecting bottlenecks."
"It is very quick and user-friendly."
"The biggest thing I liked about it is that there is a huge user base out there, and being shareware and being Apache, if I have any question on how to get something done, I get 18 different answers. Out of those, there would be at least a few good approaches for what I was trying to do. So, the support system out there is most valuable."
"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."
"JMeter is a free tool with a large user population, which comes in handy because we have a vast knowledge base to tap into when needed. It's also easier to hire consultants who know JMeter."
"The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the ready-to-use assertions and filters which can perform the validation. If we want to filter out any value, the filters are available. Apart from that database integration, if you want to go ahead and perform validation in the database layer it is possible with the ready-to-use feature available. The execution and reporting are rich features."
"When we are doing API testing we have found it to be very efficient to receive results. Additionally, you are able to do tests directly from the API."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data."
"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"The reporting section of the solution can be better."
"We're like the solution to be more user-friendly."
"The solution's setup could be easier and security could be improved to minimize vulnerabilities."
"The solution needs to improve reporting. Currently, there is not enough automation involved with the feature. For example, there should be an automatic way of saving reports."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"The solution is not user-friendly, there is no framework for autocorrelation or parameterization."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"If JMeter could provide a web version of editing, that would be good."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
"There is a lot of room for improvement, mainly from the point of view of integrating ReadyAPI into the CI pipelines, and also the scripting aspect into Bitbucket."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. 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 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". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test, SmartBear TestComplete and Parasoft SOAtest. See our Apache JMeter vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Performance 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.