We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis Flood based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Load 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."
"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."
"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."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase was straightforward."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"One thing that we are doing a lot with the solution, and it's very good, is orchestrating a lot of JMeter agents. This feature has helped us a lot because we can reuse other vendors' performance scripts that they have used with JMeter before."
"The most valuable feature is the support for Java, where we can quickly code what we need."
"Their technical support is awesome."
"You can utilize this tool on the cloud, and also access application on-premises. That is a very good part of the solution."
"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."
"The product currently doesn't allow users to run parallel thread groups, making it an area that should be considered for improvement."
"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."
"For a new user of BlazeMeter, it might be difficult to understand it from a programming perspective."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"The scanning capability needs improvement."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to have the ability to customize reports."
"The solution is quite immature, it is not in an optimal state."
"The performance of the tool needs to improve."
"We used an implementation strategy to deploy the solution, not because of the tools, but mainly because of the scripting part of the tool."
BlazeMeter is ranked 4th in Load Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis Flood is ranked 18th in Load Testing Tools. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Flood is rated 7.0. 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 Tricentis Flood writes "Need improvements ,but has cloud and on-premises options". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and ReadyAPI, whereas Tricentis Flood is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad. See our BlazeMeter vs. Tricentis Flood report.
See our list of best Load Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Load 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.