We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and BrowserStack based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."With the help of the Mock Services, we are overcoming everything. Wherever we are facing issues, whether they will be long term or temporary, by implementing the Mock Services we can bypass the faulty components that are not needed for our particular testing."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"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 stability is good."
"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 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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"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."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"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."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while BrowserStack is rated 8.0. 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 BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Sauce Labs, whereas BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Katalon Studio. See our BlazeMeter vs. BrowserStack report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
