We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Selenium HQ 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."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."
"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 extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"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."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ 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 Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our BlazeMeter vs. Selenium HQ 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.
