We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and SmartBear TestComplete 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 baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"It's a great platform because it's a SaaS solution, but it also builds the on-premises hosting solutions, so we have implemented a hybrid approach. BlazeMeter sets us up for our traditional hosting platforms and application stack as well as the modern cloud-based or SaaS-based application technologies."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that BlazeMeter provides easy access to its users while also ensuring that its reporting functionalities are good."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The product has many features."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"One problem, while we are executing a test, is that it will take some time to download data. Let's say I'm performance testing with a high-end load configuration. It takes a minimum of three minutes or so to start the test itself. That's the bad part of the performance testing... every time I rerun the same test, it is downloaded again... That means I have to wait for three to four minutes again."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"The Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"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."
"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."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"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."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 71 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our BlazeMeter vs. SmartBear TestComplete 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.
