We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and BlazeMeter based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Since JMeter has limited scalability, BlazeMeter is the clear winner in this comparison.
"Scripting with the solution is good."
"User-friendly and open source."
"It's stable and reliable."
"It is very quick and user-friendly."
"What I like best about Apache JMeter is its user-friendly GUI because even if you don't have very good coding knowledge or understanding, or even if you don't come from a development background, you can still use the solution with just a few clicks. This is what's unique about Apache JMeter, in comparison with other tools in the market. As Apache JMeter is open source, when there's a missing feature, you can search in several community blogs for plugins that you can use to modify Apache JMeter to meet your requirements, and this is another advantage."
"It gives accurate results and recommendations that we can implement to enhance the performance of websites."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"JMeter lets us generate virtual users and T-load, per our requirements. It's easy to configure and adjusting the virtual users according to the DPS we want to achieve."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The most valuable aspect of BlazeMeter is its user-friendly nature, ability to conduct distributed load testing and comprehensive analysis and reporting features. It particularly excels in providing a clear and organized view of load test results."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"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 stability is good."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"The reporting is not very good."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"JMeter output reports can be difficult to understand without training."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"There could be improvements in terms of memory utilization. We are going to migrate away from JMeter in the near future."
"Both scalability and stability could be improved in Apache JMeter."
"The tool needs to have a better Graphical User Interface. Many of the solution's features are difficult to understand due to the complex user interface and user experience. The product needs to add plugins. It should also work on the integration with external partners like IDE and API gateways."
"It's not easy to get the data from one place or to do customizations."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"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."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"If the solution had better support and the documentation was efficient it would do better in the market."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"The tool fails to offer better parameterization to allow it to run the same script across different environments, making it a feature that needs a little improvement."
"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."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Performance Testing Tools with 41 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while BlazeMeter 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 BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". Apache JMeter is most compared with Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and ReadyAPI, whereas BlazeMeter is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BrowserStack and Perfecto. See our Apache JMeter vs. BlazeMeter 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.