We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and ReadyAPI based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Very user-friendly and easy to use."
"To me, what's most valuable in Apache JMeter is that it's a lightweight tool for application testing. It's the best load-testing tool for my company because Apache JMeter simulates your application during testing. Apache JMeter also creates threads with good server utilization. Apache JMeter allows you to focus on analyzing the situation, looking into measurements, response time, and client-server responses, which I find valuable."
"The features that I appreciate are quite basic. It is easy to ramp up the threads and start calling the application. A lot of connectors can already be found within Apache JMeter, but we are not using the entire set because the integration between the customers and platform is based on HTTP. We are just going to produce lots of HTTP sequences."
"JMeter is user-friendly, and that's a notable advantage of JVTech. It's straightforward and easy to use, unlike some other load testing tools, making it very easy to understand."
"It's a free tool."
"The biggest thing I liked about it is that there is a huge user base out there, and being shareware and being Apache, if I have any question on how to get something done, I get 18 different answers. Out of those, there would be at least a few good approaches for what I was trying to do. So, the support system out there is most valuable."
"The product helps me get the expected performance from applications or servers and reduces costs. It also enhances the performance of the services and helped them reach their ultimate capacity."
"It is scalable. You can scale up to 1,000 users in JMeter. If you can put up four slave servers, you can easily ramp up to 1,000 users."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools."
"The Excel sheet feature is good."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."
"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"In this tool, automation in general is almost non-existent. Everything is done manually."
"The UI of the solution needs to be better. The UI takes up a lot of our bandwidth."
"In Micro Focus LoadRunner we can go from the UI and we can configure it. There is no such feature in Apache JMeter. There should be UI-based recording history or logs."
"In terms of platform support, they need to extend the support for backend platforms and more of the legacy types of platforms."
"The solution's setup could be easier and security could be improved to minimize vulnerabilities."
"The UI has room for improvement."
"The only thing is the learning curve. It's high."
"Version control does not work well."
"ReadyAPI could improve by having dynamic validation information."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"There is a lot of room for improvement, mainly from the point of view of integrating ReadyAPI into the CI pipelines, and also the scripting aspect into Bitbucket."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Performance Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. 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 ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Parasoft SOAtest. See our Apache JMeter vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Performance 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.