We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and LambdaTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The stability is good."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"For me, the best part is that we can graphically see the test result at runtime. It helps us understand the behavior of the application during all stages of the test."
"The orchestration feature is the most valuable. It's like the tourist backend component of BlazeMeter. It allows me to essentially give BlazeMeter multiple JMeter scripts and a YAML file, and it will orchestrate and execute that load test and all those scripts as I define them."
"The on-the-fly test data improved our testing productivity a lot. The new test data features changed how we test the applications because there are different things we can do. We can use mock data or real data. We can also build data based on different formats."
"It has helped us simulate heavy load situations so we can fix performance issues ahead of time."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"The slow nature of a cloud platform was compensated with parallel testing, and now we are able to finish our testing job faster than it was before COVID."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"It is a scalable solution."
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
"Having more options for customization would be helpful."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"Integration with APM tools like Dynatrace or AppDynamics needs to be improved."
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"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 feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 18 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while LambdaTest is rated 9.0. 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 LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Perfecto and Tricentis Tosca. See our BlazeMeter vs. LambdaTest report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
