We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Selenium HQ 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 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."
"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 baseline comparison in BlazeMeter is very easy, especially considering the different tests that users can easily compare."
"In our company, various teams use BlazeMeter, particularly appreciating its cloud license software, which supports up to 5,000 users. BlazeMeter's cloud capabilities allow us to load test or simulate traffic from any location worldwide, such as Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and even specific cities like Delhi. So, with one cloud license, we can simulate user load from various locations globally."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to run high loads and generate reports."
"Using cloud-based load generators is highly valuable to us, as we can test from outside our network and increase load generation without having to upscale our hardware as much. The cloud load generator is there when we need it and is the feature we leverage the most."
"BlazeMeter's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"It supports any number of features and has a lot of tutorials."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"The stability and performance are good."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"The only downside of BlazeMeter is that it is a bit expensive."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"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."
"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."
"Scalability is an area of concern in BlazeMeter, where improvements are required."
"I don't think I can generate a JMX file unless I run JMeter, which is one of my concerns when it comes to BlazeMeter."
"Lacks an option to include additional users during a test run."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ 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 Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our BlazeMeter vs. Selenium HQ 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.
