We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"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."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"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."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"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."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"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."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"The integration tools could be better."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
BlazeMeter is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 41 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 72 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our BlazeMeter vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
