We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and LambdaTest 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."The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"The most valuable feature is the real-time testing, which helps you to test your website on more than two thousand combinations of browsers and operating systems."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It's user-friendly and offers valuable features for testing, making it a reliable tool."
"The slow nature of a cloud platform was compensated with parallel testing, and now we are able to finish our testing job faster than it was before COVID."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"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 seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"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."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."
"Sometimes, when multiple users use the tool simultaneously, it can slow down, affecting efficiency."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 21 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while LambdaTest is rated 8.8. 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 LambdaTest writes "Technical support should be improved, though it has great documentation". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Perfecto. See our BlazeMeter vs. LambdaTest report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.