We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Perfecto 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."The new version of the solution is stable."
"User-friendly and open source."
"JMeter is a free tool with a large user population, which comes in handy because we have a vast knowledge base to tap into when needed. It's also easier to hire consultants who know JMeter."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"I use all the tools, but one feature that stands out is JMeter's ability to test when services are sending a particular kind of request. We are using specific ports to send queries, and assess the performance based on the time it takes these queries to respond. You can use it with stuff other than the web performance."
"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."
"JMeter is user-friendly, and that's a notable advantage of JVTech. It's straightforward and easy to use, unlike some other load testing tools, making it very easy to understand."
"We find the load testing feature valuable."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it covers all types of devices on the market allowing you to test different versions of an operating system."
"The CI dashboard tool is very good, as is the Live Stream monitoring. Whenever I want to monitor execution, I can open multiple tabs in Perfecto and it is easy for me to refer to the CI dashboard and the Live Stream."
"One of the good things about Perfecto is the scalability that it provides."
"We're working in Agile and we need results ASAP. The fact that the lab provides same-day access to new devices is extremely important to us."
"There are a whole bunch of things that I like about the solution, but I really love the interaction it has with mobile devices, the testing capabilities, as well as reporting capabilities that we get from the application. The reports are very detailed."
"The quality of our software has improved since we implemented this solution."
"The most valuable feature is automated testing."
"The reporting feature is really tough to find in some of the other products that are competitors. Having your CITB type dashboard, where we can see the test results and see recordings of each test that passed or failed, is probably one of the distinguishing aspects of Perfecto."
"The memory utilization in JMeter is very poor."
"At present, if the number of virtual users increases beyond 10,000 when testing, then it results in a Java heap which causes the solution to crash."
"There are certain things like we can't merge custom metrics into the JMeter reports. We're limited to JMeter metrics, and other server metrics can't be integrated with JMeter dashboard. This forces us to rely on another tool."
"The UI has room for improvement."
"The UI could be better."
"It will be much easier, and beneficial for the individual to run it on their own machines rather than having a high-end infrastructure, more CPUs, or more memory that has been consumed by Apache JMeter."
"The reporting is not very good."
"Automation is difficult in JMeter."
"We feel that Perfecto is a little slow. If they could improve on that slowness in accessing the app, when we want to click a button, that would be great because we feel the difference. An improvement in the connectivity speed is required."
"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."
"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."
"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."
"I would like to see the inclusion of machine learning features. If we can have that, it will be a better tool."
"One improvement would be speed of execution. If it is an iOS native app, we have noticed that the speed is a bit slower. Perfecto might need to make some improvements in this area."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
"Going by the dashboard or analytics capabilities that Perfecto or Perforce is looking to offer in its roadmap, it will certainly help if they also cater to executing and enabling decision-making, rather than just focusing on standard testing metrics such as execution, efficiency, and defect rate. These are good metrics, but they don't necessarily enable decision-making for SLTs. Any improvements in the dashboards and reporting tools should focus on metrics or SLAs that can help with decision-making."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Perfecto is ranked 8th in Performance Testing Tools with 23 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Perfecto is rated 8.4. 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 Perfecto writes "Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Perfecto is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Appium, AWS Device Farm and Katalon Studio. See our Apache JMeter vs. Perfecto report.
See our list of best Performance 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.