We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and ReadyAPI Test 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 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."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"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."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"The solution offers flexibility with its configurations."
"The stability is good."
"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."
"The solution has some good scanning features."
"We used to write our own solutions, from small scripts to task web services, so this saves us thousands of hours."
"SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."
"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."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"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."
"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."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"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."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI Test 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 ReadyAPI Test writes "You can achieve any complex task with this tool". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, Broadcom Service Virtualization, ReadyAPI, Tricentis Tosca and Apigee. See our BlazeMeter vs. ReadyAPI Test 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.