We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"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 baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"The stability is good."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"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."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
BlazeMeter is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 41 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 72 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our BlazeMeter vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
