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."Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"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."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"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."
"BlazeMeter needs more granular access control. Currently, BlazeMeter controls everything at a workspace level, so a user can view or modify anything inside that workspace depending on their role. It would be nice if there was a more granular control where you could say, "This person can only do A, B, and C," or, "This user only has access to functional testing. This user only has access to mock services." That feature set doesn't currently exist."
"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"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."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"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."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"The solution is slow."
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.
