We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and BlazeMeter based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Since JMeter has limited scalability, BlazeMeter is the clear winner in this comparison.
"The solution helps by detecting bottlenecks."
"It is open source as well as relatively extendable. It allows us to extend and add additional functionality and features. Its deployment is also very easy."
"The most valuable features are the ability to capture the entire traffic of particular pages and the proper readability of entire pages and entire APIs."
"Very user-friendly and easy to use."
"JMeter is easy to use for a user who doesn't have too much knowledge of programming or certain languages."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"When there's a high number of TPS I can achieve more transactions per seconds given the hyper-limitations."
"The performance of the solution is excellent."
"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 product's initial setup phase was simple."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"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."
"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 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 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 stability is good."
"The reporting is not very good."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"At times when we overload the application, it gets stuck...After the solution gets stuck due to overloading, we have to restart our computers. In short, the solution keeps crashing."
"The tool needs to have a better Graphical User Interface. Many of the solution's features are difficult to understand due to the complex user interface and user experience. The product needs to add plugins. It should also work on the integration with external partners like IDE and API gateways."
"In terms of setup, it could be nicer, to be honest. Sometimes, I get a little bit lost."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"The UI could be better."
"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."
"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 should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"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."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while BlazeMeter is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Katalon Studio and ReadyAPI, whereas BlazeMeter is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, Perfecto and BrowserStack. See our Apache JMeter vs. BlazeMeter report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.
