We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and ReadyAPI Performance based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We find the load testing feature valuable."
"The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It's easy to set up."
"The ease of use is the solution's most valuable feature. Also, the ability to easily create test cases is also very good. It's easy to just ramp up on the solution."
"It is easy to set up."
"The features that I appreciate are quite basic. It is easy to ramp up the threads and start calling the application. A lot of connectors can already be found within Apache JMeter, but we are not using the entire set because the integration between the customers and platform is based on HTTP. We are just going to produce lots of HTTP sequences."
"The solution is free. You don't need to worry about licensing costs."
"The metrics part of it and the ability to write your custom code to do some specific tests in the performance testing space are the most valuable features."
"We find the product to be scalable."
"We can scale."
"It's like a centralized interface that allows us to increase the quality of our APIs."
"he initial deployment process is easy."
"The performance and reporting of this solution have been its most valuable features."
"It stores good reports, as in, improved reports if compared with the SoapUI. It also has in-built security. You just need to switch and check the security testing. My team has never used it, but I know ReadyAPI provides those facilities as well."
"ReadyAPI automation can help us validate the functionality of most web services, allowing us to find out the exact number of defects before deployment to the user interface."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"The reporting section of the solution can be better."
"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."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"At times when we overload the application, it gets stuck...After the solution gets stuck due to overloading, we have to restart our computers. In short, the solution keeps crashing."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"This is an area for improvement with the tool. We unnecessarily use JMeter for some website testing, which we would like to avoid by introducing this tool for API and load testing because it provides load testing features."
"We need some time to understand and configure the solution."
"This solution could be improved by offering artificial AI testing in addition to API testing. For example, we would like to have machine learning testing because when test applications, manual work could be completed automatically using this functionality."
"The solution’s interface could be improved."
"I'd not sure if they have the same level of documentation for performance and security testing."
"I want the solution to be able to monitor Apache Kafka activity as well."
"It is very slow sometimes."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Load Testing Tools with 82 reviews while ReadyAPI Performance is ranked 8th in Load Testing Tools with 7 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while ReadyAPI Performance is rated 8.2. 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 Performance writes "Straightforward to install with the ability to add multiple assertions but the price is too high". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas ReadyAPI Performance is most compared with SmartBear LoadNinja. See our Apache JMeter vs. ReadyAPI Performance report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors and best Performance 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.