We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and LambdaTest 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."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."
"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."
"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 product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"It has a unique programming dashboard that is very user-friendly."
"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."
"BlazeMeter can be used for both API and performance testing, it is a multi-facility tool."
"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."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"The slow nature of a cloud platform was compensated with parallel testing, and now we are able to finish our testing job faster than it was before COVID."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring."
"Without a doubt, LambdaTest is one of the big reasons behind our faster deployment and better team collaboration."
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"The reporting capabilities could be improved."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"BlazeMeter has room for improvement in terms of its integration with GitLab, particularly in the context of CI/CD processes. While it has multiple integrations available, the level of integration with GitLab may need further enhancements. It is known to work well with Git and Jenkins, although the extent of compatibility with GitLab is uncertain."
"The performance could be better. When reviewing finished cases, it sometimes takes a while for BlazeMeter to load. That has improved recently, but it's still a problem with unusually large test cases. The same goes for editing test cases. When editing test cases, it starts to take a long time to open those action groups and stuff."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"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."
"We encountered some minor bugs, and I would like to have the ability to add load generators to workspaces without having to use APIs. We can't do that now, so we're beholden to the APIs."
"A possible improvement could be the integration with APM tools."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis...There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while LambdaTest is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 19 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while LambdaTest is rated 9.0. 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 LambdaTest writes "Cost-effective, good integration, and parallel testing leads to good performance". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Perfecto. See our BlazeMeter vs. LambdaTest report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
