We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."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."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The reporting features are really good. There's a lot less latency than other solutions."
"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."
"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."
"JMeter is easy to use for a user who doesn't have too much knowledge of programming or certain languages."
"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."
"It's a free tool."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Selenium integration."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"It has some proxy-based dependencies which require specific proxies to be set up or disabled, which causes problems."
"The only thing is the learning curve. It's high."
"The UI could be better."
"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 solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"It will be much easier, and beneficial for the individual to run it on their own machines rather than having a high-end infrastructure, more CPUs, or more memory that has been consumed by Apache JMeter."
"JMeter is lagging when it comes to GUI performance testing because we need to install some third-party plugins for recording the GUI script, and the performance isn't very reliable."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish.
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.