We performed a comparison between Akamai CloudTest and Apache JMeter based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."This is an awesome performance testing tool for web based applications, able to generate load multiple geographies, dynamic ramp-up to any levels of virtual users."
"From my own experience, if you're talking about load testing and performance testing then definitely you should go for CloudTest. Because when we compared CloudTest with Performance Center, cost wise it was a better solution. It is easy to use as well, and you can definitely get an automation engineer or a performance engineer with very little exposure to any programming or scripting language such as JavaScript. I would definitely recommend this solution and would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten."
"The level of support is quite good and the integration is also very flexible."
"The solution is very stable."
"We are using this for performance testing and some automation."
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"API testing, Database Testing, and MQ testing can be done with ease."
"The reports and analysis tools are very good. They are the solution's most valuable features."
"It is easy to set up."
"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."
"Apache JMeter is stable."
"It's very easy to install, and it's very easy to code and develop the script."
"The test clip should be more user-friendly."
"In terms of improvement, I think integration of these tools with the leading EPM tools would be good. It would help to seamlessly integrate to Dynatrace or AppDynamics to understand what the profiling looks like when generating a load."
"It's a manual process to whitelist respective internal IPs in coordination with web operations team to access Soasta. Availability of any standardized tool from Soasta will make setup process easy."
"Akamai cloud test integration into our current CI/CD pipelines (i.e.) identify and resolve the issues during the sprint phase which helps in delivering an absolute product and reduces time to market/release."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"The user interface is a little bit tricky."
"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."
"Improving JMeter's sync time would be beneficial."
"I need to consider it further because as features increase, it might become more complicated, and my goal has always been simplicity. Currently, I have to focus on other tasks, and I'm handling multiple responsibilities, so I can't juggle everything at once. However, if you ask me, I believe EJB covers most functionalities that are crucial. One improvement I'd suggest is adding a graphical aspect to the Gateway, making it a bit more colorful. Unlike JMeter, which lacks color, having a bit of color in the graphical aspects would be beneficial. Overall, for the essential features, EJB should work fine."
"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."
"You really need a technical team in order to really utilize the product."
"Considering the kinds of tests we are performing here, where we launch several tests at the same time as a batch request, JMeter is not the best tool for the job. Those kinds of things could be done easily with other tools, like T6."
Akamai CloudTest is ranked 12th in Performance Testing Tools with 6 reviews while Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews. Akamai CloudTest is rated 7.6, while Apache JMeter is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Akamai CloudTest writes "Is easy to use and quick to setup, and does not require much resource capacity for medium instances". On the other hand, 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". Akamai CloudTest is most compared with OpenText LoadRunner Professional, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, Tricentis NeoLoad and k6 Open Source, whereas Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and k6 Open Source. See our Akamai CloudTest vs. Apache JMeter report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Load Testing Tools vendors.
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.