We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"Apache JMeter is well-known and widely used among developers, particularly on popular developer forums. While it may not have the most user-friendly interface, it offers strong support through official manuals and various articles from companies providing load testing services. The tool is free, has a substantial community, and serves as a fundamental choice for testers, especially those new to performance testing. While other tools like K6 may be more developer-oriented, JMeter's affordability and accessibility make it suitable for those without extensive performance testing experience."
"JMeter is easy to use for a user who doesn't have too much knowledge of programming or certain languages."
"The performance of the solution is excellent."
"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."
"This solution is easier to use than any other tool in the market; there is not even a requirement to learn a lot of scripting in order to use it."
"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."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"The reporting is really nice."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"The low code is the best feature."
"Object Identification Wizard."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"It can provide all levels of testing from design to execution to reporting."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"In terms of setup, it could be nicer, to be honest. Sometimes, I get a little bit lost."
"At times when we overload the application, it gets stuck...After the solution gets stuck due to overloading, we have to restart our computers. In short, the solution keeps crashing."
"The UI could be better."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"Report generation needs to be improved. It is quite difficult to get to."
"It's not easy to get the data from one place or to do customizations."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"JMeter's reporting is extremely rudimentary. The fundamental reporting mechanisms need to be drastically improved. It doesn't utilize an automatic session management mechanism or methods other tools use like parsing cookies and variables. Everything needs to be done manually. There's no automation."
"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."
"The main area where there is room for improvement is how they do upgrades. Going through this current upgrade, we were delayed a month because we are using a third-party tool. It's called Tosca Connect by Tasktop. When this latest upgrade broke that relationship between the two, it took Tricentis a month to come back with a workable solution... Their whole upgrade process needs to be better and cleaner, from an end-user standpoint."
"In terms of areas for improvement, Tricentis has a variety of tools, even its test management tool called qTest. Tricentis Tosca does have integration with different Tricentis tools, but the integration is geared towards a larger organization perspective. For very small organizations that have minimal licenses, the integration needs to be improvised. For example, I belong to a smaller organization that has only one license, so the capability that the tool provides for integration isn't sufficient because my company needs to have separate workspaces. When Tricentis Tosca is going to be running, it is going to use that license, but my company wants another separate workspace to record, relay, and test. This is what my team has been struggling with, and the mechanism is probably there, but that needs more time and investigation, so I can't say that I'm one hundred percent certain that Tricentis Tosca, in terms of integration for a smaller organization is insufficient. Another area for improvement is that Tricentis Tosca is currently just a Windows-based tool which affects the market because nowadays, Windows isn't the only operating system, for example, there's also Apple or IOS that's moving much faster than Windows."
"It is quite difficult to integrate the solution with other tools."
"The reporting function was lacking in usability and detail."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
"ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times."
"They can make it more stable. I have used this tool for SAP applications. They have an alliance with SAP, and it mostly worked fine, but there were a few glitches. However, we got the required support from the Tricentis team. They are coming up with their new versions and upgrades with respect to how the Tricentis systems as cloud applications are updated, and it would be good if they have a robust accelerator pack."
Apache JMeter is ranked 3rd in API Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 2nd in API Testing Tools with 96 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and SmartBear LoadNinja, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and SmartBear TestComplete. See our Apache JMeter vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.