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 scripting ability is most valuable. It is easy to use. There is a UI, and you can go in there and figure those things out. After you've got a good set of tests, you basically have a scripted document that you can grab and execute in a pipeline. It is pretty quick to set up, and you can scale it and version control it."
"The solution offers a lot of plug-ins and a huge continuously developing community that is regularly offering new features and plug-ins."
"We find the ease of use and the reports and graphs available valuable."
"User-friendly and open source."
"The performance of the solution is excellent."
"I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature in JMeter is the Thread Group, which helps us to see whether the performance is good."
"Selenium integration."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"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."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"We would like some reporting and analysis tools to be added to this solution."
"It's not easy to get the data from one place or to do customizations."
"Until now, JMeter is not supporting most of the protocols."
"The UI needs some work. The first time I used JMeter, I couldn't record the full scenario to mimic the user experience. Since then, they have introduced some plugins and a third-party tool called BlazeMeter."
"Running JMeter in GUI mode uses a lot of memory, which means we need to switch to a non-GUI mode when using a heavy load."
"Given that Apache JMeter is a free and open-source tool, documentation improvement may not be a major concern, as it is mostly contributed on a voluntary basis. The essential information is already available. However, in terms of the interface, there are occasional bugs, and the tool may not address them as quickly as some users would like. Fixing defects and bugs might take a considerable amount of time, with users sometimes having to wait for several months or even a year for the next release to address specific issues."
"Because so much is being done these days with authentication processes, a better system for either getting bearer tokens or some kind of token-based authentication prior to executing APIs would benefit the product. It is there, and you can do things. It is just not real clean at this point. There should be a better authentication process for JMeter or some automation or better guidelines for gaining and utilizing tokens on the fly."
"JMeter output reports can be difficult to understand without training."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"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."
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.