We performed a comparison between BlazeMeter and Tricentis Tosca 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 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 stability is good."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"BlazeMeter has allowed us to simplify and speed up our load testing process."
"Its most valuable features are its strong community support, user-friendly interface, and flexible capacity options."
"The extensibility that the tool offers across environments and teams is valuable."
"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's most valuable feature is its cloud-based platform for performance testing."
"The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable."
"We like the fact that it works across mobile, desktop, web, and APIs. Due to this, the solution has a broad range of applications."
"Tosca BI is important to make sure that our data integrity is in check and validated; to make sure our data is good. Our data is the number-one important driver for our company, so if that's not good, we have some big problems."
"Tricentis Tosca is well integrated with other products like Jira."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Tosca Commander."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications."
"The seamless integration with mobiles could be improved."
"Integration is one of the things lacking in BlazeMeter compared to some newer options."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"From a performance perspective, BlazeMeter needs to be improved...BlazeMeter has not found the extensions for WebSockets or Java Applet."
"I believe that data management and test server virtualization are things that Perforce is working on, or should be working on."
"It can be quite expensive."
"The product is not very stable when used with cloud storage. It is very hard to load the screen, making it difficult to use the tool in cloud storage."
"The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars."
"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."
"The document object model or some aspects of it has a bit of a learning curve."
"It would be of great help if they can fix the loading or performance issues. Sometimes, when I create the test case folder and test cases, it feels like it has loading or performance issues. When passing the objects, we can't sometimes find the exact element. We need to find out that exact location and just give the path for that, and then it works. In the pipeline, when creating Jenkins, we create the list execution for passing the execution list to the commander. I feel it is a bit late, by a fraction of seconds. I first thought it could be my mistake or a setting issue, but I worked on that, and it's not a mistake or a setting issue."
"Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response."
"I would like a better user interface."
BlazeMeter is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. BlazeMeter is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". BlazeMeter is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BrowserStack, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our BlazeMeter vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression 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.
