We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and BrowserStack based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"I really like the recording because when I use the JMeter the scripting a lot of recording it takes me a lot of time to get used to. The BlazeMeter the recording is quick."
"It is a stable solution. When we compare BlazeMeter with other tools in the market, I can say that the solution's overall performance has also been very good in our company."
"The stability is good."
"They have good support documentation and when we have contacted them, they helped to guide us."
"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."
"The baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"The feature that stands out the most is their action groups. They act like functions or methods and code, allowing us to reuse portions of our tests. That also means we have a single point for maintenance when updates are required. Instead of updating a hundred different test cases, we update one action group, and the test cases using that action group will update."
"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"The integration is very good."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The scanning capability needs 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."
"The should be some visibility into load testing. I'd like to capture items via snapshots."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"Potential areas for improvement could include pricing, configuration, setup, and addressing certain limitations."
"My only complaint is about the technical support, where sometimes I found that they would not read into and understand the details of my question before answering it."
"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 Timeline Report panel has no customization options. One feature that I missed was not having a time filter, which I had in ELK. For example, there are only filter requests for a time of less than 5 seconds."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while BrowserStack is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of BlazeMeter writes "Reduced our test operating costs, provides quick feedback, and helps us understand how to build better test cases". On the other hand, the top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Perfecto, whereas BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Katalon Studio. See our BlazeMeter vs. BrowserStack report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.