We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and RadView WebLOAD 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 most valuable features of Apache JMeter are user-friendliness, large resource, and the quality of assistance they provide. Additionally, it is easy to integrate with cloud platforms, such as AWS."
"The solution offers a lot of plug-ins and a huge continuously developing community that is regularly offering new features and plug-ins."
"It's a powerful tool that is open source."
"It's open source, so I like that about the product. And there's a lot of community support for it."
"We use Apache JMeter for load testing, where we provide the throughput time."
"When someone in our organization wants to test web applications, they use Apache JMeter since they face no hurdles while using the solution."
"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."
"We like that Apache JMeter has different features and different plugins and that they are free of charge."
"The most valuable aspect is that the IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reporting."
"The solution is simple and useful."
"Report generation needs to be improved. It is quite difficult to get to."
"In terms of platform support, they need to extend the support for backend platforms and more of the legacy types of platforms."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"The reports in Apache JMeter could improve."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"One of the drawbacks of JMeter is that it can't handle a large amount of load, which forces us to switch to other tools when we need to load more than a 5,000 or 10,000 user load."
"If JMeter could provide a web version of editing, that would be good."
"The installation needs some work. It could be simplified."
"There is no analytical dashboard."
"Technical support is slow and wastes a lot of time, so it needs to be improved."
"The reporting side of things is really complicated. It's difficult to get out exactly what you're looking for, there are almost too many options."
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while RadView WebLOAD is ranked 11th in Performance Testing Tools with 9 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while RadView WebLOAD 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 RadView WebLOAD writes "IDE is simple and it's quick to complete the process but the reporting is complicated". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas RadView WebLOAD is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, BlazeMeter and k6 Open Source. See our Apache JMeter vs. RadView WebLOAD 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.